The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: herewegoround on March 04, 2015, 04:19:29 AM
-
Imagine an observer in a space with a series of point like objects randomly scattered through it. Now suppose that the points are rotating around an axis that the observer is positioned on, let’s call the observer’s position O. Suppose the position of a given point is P. There will be a line from P to the axis of rotation that is perpendicular to the axis of rotation. Suppose the point that this line meets the axis of rotation at is called A. P moves in a circle with centre A and radius AP. There will be an angle between OA and OP, let’s call it x°; this angle determines how the motion of P is perceived by the observer. If x°= 0°, P would be on the axis of rotation and would not be seen to move by the observer at O. If x°= 180°, P would also be on the axis and wouldn’t appear to move but it would be in the opposite direction. If x° = 90°, P would be seen to move in a giant circle around O. Suppose for x between 0° and 90° P moves in an anti-clockwise circle, then for x between 90° and 180° P will move in a clockwise circle. Imagine you are floating in the middle of a spinning room, if the ceiling is spinning anticlockwise the floor will be spinning clockwise. The points that have x° close to either 0° or 180° will appear to the observer to rotate around a centre of rotation. There will be two different centres of rotation at 0° and 180°.
If the observer only saw points which had x° between 0° and 90° then they would see all the points rotating anti-clockwise and there would only be one visible centre of rotation. This could be the case if say the observer was standing on a disc which obscured the points with x° between 90° and 180° or if there were no points with x° in this range.
If the observer was standing on a large sphere then what they saw would depend on what part of the sphere they were standing on. If they were close to one of the two points on the surface which the axis of rotation passes through (the poles), they would see the points either rotate clockwise or anticlockwise depending on what side of the sphere they were on. They would only see one centre of rotation directly above the pole. If they were close to the plane that the points with x°=90 rotate around (the equator), they would see these points and rise and set. They would also just manage to see the two centres of rotations at 0° and 180°.
The model which most closely fits what we see on Earth is the sphere with the points as stars. The only difference being it’s the Earth that rotates. This is geometrically equivalent although physically distinguishable to the stars rotating. We see circumpolar stars in both the Northern and Southern hemisphere, in the North they rotate anti-clockwise and in the South they rotate clockwise. We see stars near the equator rise and set.
On a flat Earth all the stars would be at an angle of between 0° and 90°. Either because there are no stars below the Earth or there are but we can’t see them. On a flat disc Earth we would not expect to see two sets of circumpolar stars even when we are close the edge of the disc. If there were stars below the Earth, with x° between 90° and 180°, the only way we could see them was if we could visit the other side of the disc. Then we would see the other circumpolar stars. If there were only stars above a flat disc Earth then we would only ever see one centre of rotation. There is no reason at all why we would see stars rise and set near the equator on a flat Earth.
-
are you really still beating this dead horse?
move on. change the record.
-
are you really still beating this dead horse?
move on. change the record.
I wouldn't have to if it wasn't for halfwits like you who need the blindingly obvious explained to them. You were the one who said I hadn't argued the point properly, well now I have. Explain why I am wrong, admit you can't or go fuck yourself. I don't mind which to be perfectly honest.
-
are you really still beating this dead horse?
LOL... yet another typical "response" from JRoweSkeptic. No substance; off-topic; veiled insult; unscientific; irrelevant etc.
If you don't mind JRoweSkeptic, why don't you leave it to the flat earthers who actually have the intelligence to address this scenario? Why waste your time further confirming what we already know—that you're little more than a persistent troll intent on disrupting every thread you infest with your inconsequential drivel.
-
are you really still beating this dead horse?
move on. change the record.
I wouldn't have to if it wasn't for halfwits like you who need the blindingly obvious explained to them. You were the one who said I hadn't argued the point properly, well now I have. Explain why I am wrong, admit you can't or go fuck yourself. I don't mind which to be perfectly honest.
i'm not the one who needs the obvious explained. i have provided a diagram, evidence, and your assertion "There is no reason at all why we would see stars rise and set near the equator on a flat Earth," means nothing. variation in distance from the central pole settles this, and is already expected from how the sun must move to maintain the seasons.
you seem to be struggling with the fact that a disc is a two dimensional object, while a sphere has three. leave the flat earth alone, for a moment. engage in some simple mathematical modelling. take a balloon, inflate to a sphere, mark the paths star take, around a pole at the top, and the bottom. pop the balloon at one pole. flatten it out. guess what? now everything is going around the other pole. simple math.
whether the earth is flat or round, you are going to get the same star paths. are you finished?
geoff, get a life. i explain my views clearly, your inability to provide any basis for your claims renders your posts far more like drivel than mine. just because you're clinging to a round earth fantasy does not mean you get to dismiss everyone else.
-
i'm not the one who needs the obvious explained. i have provided a diagram, evidence, and your assertion "There is no reason at all why we would see stars rise and set near the equator on a flat Earth," means nothing. variation in distance from the central pole settles this, and is already expected from how the sun must move to maintain the seasons.
Variation in central poles? What the fuck are you talking about? What diagram?
you seem to be struggling with the fact that a disc is a two dimensional object, while a sphere has three. leave the flat earth alone, for a moment. engage in some simple mathematical modelling. take a balloon, inflate to a sphere, mark the paths star take, around a pole at the top, and the bottom. pop the balloon at one pole. flatten it out. guess what? now everything is going around the other pole. simple math.
whether the earth is flat or round, you are going to get the same star paths. are you finished?
What are you trying to say? That the universe is 2 dimensional? This what you do in every discussion you engage in. You say things that don't mean anything. It's because you have nothing to add. I took the time to make a proper argument. If you can't address it, fuck off.
Why don't you admit you are troll and do us all a favour.
-
I have provided a diagram, evidence...
I'm afraid I must've missed it. Link please.
Geoff, get a life. i explain my views clearly, your inability to provide any basis for your claims renders your posts far more like drivel than mine. just because you're clinging to a round earth fantasy does not mean you get to dismiss everyone else.
So... if you claim me and 6,000,000 scientists worldwide are "clinging to a round earth fantasy", can you name me 6 scientists who accept that the earth is allegedly flat?
I'm betting you can't, as I've asked this same question several times to other flat earthers, and they've failed to do so. Would you like to take up my simple little challenge, or will you too weasel your way out of it?
Now, those six scientists are......?
-
the aether accelerates the world upwards. it parts around the world, and meets above, and as it joins, it becomes a whirlpool. at the center, it is thicker, and so slower: it will be faster the further out you are, explaining speed.
i even have a diagram for how the stars rotate.
(http://i.imgur.com/qEL6TmY.png)
if you contract the wall to a point, you can see that the star paths are functionally identical. this is what you asked for.
there is no test of aether (in general. i have personal theories, but they are not relevant) that can be done from earth. this is entirely reasonable: the whirlpool of relevant is not on or near earth. if we could go up that high, it would be obvious, however.
a fact which would falsify this is a star that is able to go against the flow.
if the earth is flat, then something must be accelerating the world upwards. that should be all the evidence you need for something. aether is what we call it.
Here ya go, JROWE's post about how the southern south pole stars work. Just figured I would help him out a but since he is rather busy listening to the aether tell him how it wants to be whole again.
-
i'm not the one who needs the obvious explained. i have provided a diagram, evidence, and your assertion "There is no reason at all why we would see stars rise and set near the equator on a flat Earth," means nothing. variation in distance from the central pole settles this, and is already expected from how the sun must move to maintain the seasons.
Variation in central poles? What the fuck are you talking about? What diagram?
you seem to be struggling with the fact that a disc is a two dimensional object, while a sphere has three. leave the flat earth alone, for a moment. engage in some simple mathematical modelling. take a balloon, inflate to a sphere, mark the paths star take, around a pole at the top, and the bottom. pop the balloon at one pole. flatten it out. guess what? now everything is going around the other pole. simple math.
whether the earth is flat or round, you are going to get the same star paths. are you finished?
What are you trying to say? That the universe is 2 dimensional? This what you do in every discussion you engage in. You say things that don't mean anything. It's because you have nothing to add. I took the time to make a proper argument. If you can't address it, fuck off.
Why don't you admit you are troll and do us all a favour.
admit you're a troll. there's no other excuse for deliberately ignoring what's obvious.
the stars vary in their distance from the central pole. this explains seasons, and is basic flat earth theory. that's why they seem to cross the equator.
the stars as seen from the earth (which is what we're talking about, unless you're changing the subject), look the same when observed from a flat or round earth.
-
i'm not the one who needs the obvious explained. i have provided a diagram, evidence, and your assertion "There is no reason at all why we would see stars rise and set near the equator on a flat Earth," means nothing. variation in distance from the central pole settles this, and is already expected from how the sun must move to maintain the seasons.
Variation in central poles? What the fuck are you talking about? What diagram?
you seem to be struggling with the fact that a disc is a two dimensional object, while a sphere has three. leave the flat earth alone, for a moment. engage in some simple mathematical modelling. take a balloon, inflate to a sphere, mark the paths star take, around a pole at the top, and the bottom. pop the balloon at one pole. flatten it out. guess what? now everything is going around the other pole. simple math.
whether the earth is flat or round, you are going to get the same star paths. are you finished?
What are you trying to say? That the universe is 2 dimensional? This what you do in every discussion you engage in. You say things that don't mean anything. It's because you have nothing to add. I took the time to make a proper argument. If you can't address it, fuck off.
Why don't you admit you are troll and do us all a favour.
admit you're a troll. there's no other excuse for deliberately ignoring what's obvious.
the stars vary in their distance from the central pole. this explains seasons, and is basic flat earth theory. that's why they seem to cross the equator.
the stars as seen from the earth (which is what we're talking about, unless you're changing the subject), look the same when observed from a flat or round earth.
If you were on a disc with stars above rotating around an axis directly above the North pole. Explain precisely the following.
The stars rising and setting at the equator following a 180 degree arc from horizon to horizon.
The fact the stars at the equator are only visible at certain times of year, i.e. when they aren't obscured by the sun.
The fact that there are circumpolar stars in the Southern hemisphere with a centre of rotation which is due south at any given location. If Antarctica is a circle of ice with stars moving above it in a circle centred at the North pole then you would just see stars moving overhead, not rotating.
The fact that the sun is visible for months at a time in Antarctica while it is dark in the Arctic. If the sun was moving in a giant circle above a flat disc Earth how could it be shining everywhere in Antarctica while not shining on the Arctic?
-
i'm not the one who needs the obvious explained. i have provided a diagram, evidence, and your assertion "There is no reason at all why we would see stars rise and set near the equator on a flat Earth," means nothing. variation in distance from the central pole settles this, and is already expected from how the sun must move to maintain the seasons.
Variation in central poles? What the fuck are you talking about? What diagram?
you seem to be struggling with the fact that a disc is a two dimensional object, while a sphere has three. leave the flat earth alone, for a moment. engage in some simple mathematical modelling. take a balloon, inflate to a sphere, mark the paths star take, around a pole at the top, and the bottom. pop the balloon at one pole. flatten it out. guess what? now everything is going around the other pole. simple math.
whether the earth is flat or round, you are going to get the same star paths. are you finished?
What are you trying to say? That the universe is 2 dimensional? This what you do in every discussion you engage in. You say things that don't mean anything. It's because you have nothing to add. I took the time to make a proper argument. If you can't address it, fuck off.
Why don't you admit you are troll and do us all a favour.
admit you're a troll. there's no other excuse for deliberately ignoring what's obvious.
the stars vary in their distance from the central pole. this explains seasons, and is basic flat earth theory. that's why they seem to cross the equator.
the stars as seen from the earth (which is what we're talking about, unless you're changing the subject), look the same when observed from a flat or round earth.
If you were on a disc with stars above rotating around an axis directly above the North pole. Explain precisely the following.
The stars rising and setting at the equator following a 180 degree arc from horizon to horizon.
The fact the stars at the equator are only visible at certain times of year, i.e. when they aren't obscured by the sun.
The fact that there are circumpolar stars in the Southern hemisphere with a centre of rotation which is due south at any given location. If Antarctica is a circle of ice with stars moving above it in a circle centred at the North pole then you would just see stars moving overhead, not rotating.
The fact that the sun is visible for months at a time in Antarctica while it is dark in the Arctic. If the sun was moving in a giant circle above a flat disc Earth how could it be shining everywhere in Antarctica while not shining on the Arctic?
1. perspective, people can only see so far. the same as how the sun sets.
2. provide evidence this happens, and a round earth explanation, and i will answer. i don't know what you're saying.
3. this is everything i have been explaining. don't cling to the round earth. they rotate parallel to the ice wall, which would look identical no matter which would you stand on. what you're asking here is the same as 'but this globe says the world is flat!'
4. distance, again. the sun is closer to the rim than the center at some points, and further from the rim at others, and isn't visible from too far away. that's what night is.
-
If you were on a disc with stars above rotating around an axis directly above the North pole. Explain precisely the following.
The stars rising and setting at the equator following a 180 degree arc from horizon to horizon.
The fact the stars at the equator are only visible at certain times of year, i.e. when they aren't obscured by the sun.
The fact that there are circumpolar stars in the Southern hemisphere with a centre of rotation which is due south at any given location. If Antarctica is a circle of ice with stars moving above it in a circle centred at the North pole then you would just see stars moving overhead, not rotating.
The fact that the sun is visible for months at a time in Antarctica while it is dark in the Arctic. If the sun was moving in a giant circle above a flat disc Earth how could it be shining everywhere in Antarctica while not shining on the Arctic?
1. perspective, people can only see so far. the same as how the sun sets.
2. provide evidence this happens, and a round earth explanation, and i will answer. i don't know what you're saying.
3. this is everything i have been explaining. don't cling to the round earth. they rotate parallel to the ice wall, which would look identical no matter which would you stand on. what you're asking here is the same as 'but this globe says the world is flat!'
4. distance, again. the sun is closer to the rim than the center at some points, and further from the rim at others, and isn't visible from too far away. that's what night is.
1. That doesn't even begin to explain the sun setting for a start. If it was due to perspective the angular size of the sun would change significantly over the course of a day. It doesn't because the sun is a long way away. If the stars were moving in a giant circle then they would be seen to be doing so. They wouldn't cross the sky in an arc in exactly the way you would expect them to on a round Earth. Do you even understand what the issue is? In the North there are stars which never go below the horizon and rotate around a point which is always due North. These are called circumpolar stars. In the South there is the same thing. In between there are stars which set and rise like the sun. You would not see this if the Earth was a flat disc with stars rotating above it. Do you genuinely not understand that?
2. The stars which set and rise near the equator are not visible all year round. I'm not providing evidence for elementary well known astronomical phenomenon. If you don't know something like that then you have no business contributing to these discussions.
3. You haven't explained anything. I have given a full account of the circumpolar stars and why they are overwhelming evidence for a round Earth. Unless the geometry of the whole universe is completely whacky there is no other explanation. If they rotated parallel to the ice wall, whatever that means, they wouldn't be seen to rotate around a point. Do you really not get that or are you just being obtuse? If you have a model you need to show some diagrams or even an animation which shows how you could have two sets of circumpolar stars above a flat Earth. What you have said is meaningless.
4. If the sun was at a point on its journey around the flat Earth; how could it be shining at a point on the Antarctic ice wall on the other side of the Earth and not shining on the Arctic which is directly between the sun and the place where its shining in the Antarctic? How is that possible?
-
i'm not the one who needs the obvious explained. i have provided a diagram, evidence, and your assertion "There is no reason at all why we would see stars rise and set near the equator on a flat Earth," means nothing. variation in distance from the central pole settles this, and is already expected from how the sun must move to maintain the seasons.
Variation in central poles? What the fuck are you talking about? What diagram?
you seem to be struggling with the fact that a disc is a two dimensional object, while a sphere has three. leave the flat earth alone, for a moment. engage in some simple mathematical modelling. take a balloon, inflate to a sphere, mark the paths star take, around a pole at the top, and the bottom. pop the balloon at one pole. flatten it out. guess what? now everything is going around the other pole. simple math.
whether the earth is flat or round, you are going to get the same star paths. are you finished?
What are you trying to say? That the universe is 2 dimensional? This what you do in every discussion you engage in. You say things that don't mean anything. It's because you have nothing to add. I took the time to make a proper argument. If you can't address it, fuck off.
Why don't you admit you are troll scepti in disguise and do us all a favour.
-
If you were on a disc with stars above rotating around an axis directly above the North pole. Explain precisely the following.
The stars rising and setting at the equator following a 180 degree arc from horizon to horizon.
The fact the stars at the equator are only visible at certain times of year, i.e. when they aren't obscured by the sun.
The fact that there are circumpolar stars in the Southern hemisphere with a centre of rotation which is due south at any given location. If Antarctica is a circle of ice with stars moving above it in a circle centred at the North pole then you would just see stars moving overhead, not rotating.
The fact that the sun is visible for months at a time in Antarctica while it is dark in the Arctic. If the sun was moving in a giant circle above a flat disc Earth how could it be shining everywhere in Antarctica while not shining on the Arctic?
1. perspective, people can only see so far. the same as how the sun sets.
2. provide evidence this happens, and a round earth explanation, and i will answer. i don't know what you're saying.
3. this is everything i have been explaining. don't cling to the round earth. they rotate parallel to the ice wall, which would look identical no matter which would you stand on. what you're asking here is the same as 'but this globe says the world is flat!'
4. distance, again. the sun is closer to the rim than the center at some points, and further from the rim at others, and isn't visible from too far away. that's what night is.
1. That doesn't even begin to explain the sun setting for a start. If it was due to perspective the angular size of the sun would change significantly over the course of a day. It doesn't because the sun is a long way away. If the stars were moving in a giant circle then they would be seen to be doing so. They wouldn't cross the sky in an arc in exactly the way you would expect them to on a round Earth. Do you even understand what the issue is? In the North there are stars which never go below the horizon and rotate around a point which is always due North. These are called circumpolar stars. In the South there is the same thing. In between there are stars which set and rise like the sun. You would not see this if the Earth was a flat disc with stars rotating above it. Do you genuinely not understand that?
2. The stars which set and rise near the equator are not visible all year round. I'm not providing evidence for elementary well known astronomical phenomenon. If you don't know something like that then you have no business contributing to these discussions.
3. You haven't explained anything. I have given a full account of the circumpolar stars and why they are overwhelming evidence for a round Earth. Unless the geometry of the whole universe is completely whacky there is no other explanation. If they rotated parallel to the ice wall, whatever that means, they wouldn't be seen to rotate around a point. Do you really not get that or are you just being obtuse? If you have a model you need to show some diagrams or even an animation which shows how you could have two sets of circumpolar stars above a flat Earth. What you have said is meaningless.
4. If the sun was at a point on its journey around the flat Earth; how could it be shining at a point on the Antarctic ice wall on the other side of the Earth and not shining on the Arctic which is directly between the sun and the place where its shining in the Antarctic? How is that possible?
1. you've changed the question. stars rise and set because they rotate into and out of view. they follow an arc because that's what rotation is.
2. again, "provide evidence this happens, and a round earth explanation, and i will answer. i don't know what you're saying." i don't doubt it may be true, i just don't understand what you're trying to say or what phenomenon you're referring to. if you could link to an example of what you're talking about at the very least, i'd be able to reply.
3. this was another case where you were very unclear with what you were asking. i did not fully understand the question because you made what you meant obscure. i am speaking with someone else on the topic, when i understand what it is you're trying to propose i will reply.
4. it is a simple observation that reports of the antarctic are unreliable on a flat earth.
-
4. it is a simple observation that reports of the antarctic are unreliable on a flat earth.
What you mean is "I choose not to believe them because they undermine FET like a bitch".
Cherry picking is a logical fallacy, you know.
-
4. it is a simple observation that reports of the antarctic are unreliable on a flat earth.
What you mean is "I choose not to believe them because they undermine FET like a bitch".
Cherry picking is a logical fallacy, you know.
we know the earth is flat for separate reasons, we know governments lie, we know scientists are interested in money, we know it is possible to spend a few weeks in alaska and declare you've just come back from the antarctic. all this is perfectly logical.
-
pssst, you forgot not round there. Just letting you know you put a typo there before one of my fellow shills hits you for a Freudian slip.
-
There ya go, flat. better than my suggestion of not round.
-
4. it is a simple observation that reports of the antarctic are unreliable on a flat earth.
What you mean is "I choose not to believe them because they undermine FET like a bitch".
Cherry picking is a logical fallacy, you know.
we know the earth is flat for separate reasons, most of which are wrong. we know governments lie, not about everything, we know scientists are interested in money, but then who isn't, we know it is possible to spend a few weeks in alaska and declare you've just come back from the antarctic, and the same is true of anywhere else but not for 100% of everyone who goes there. all this is perfectly logical except for the parts which aren't.
Huge amount of cherry picking again. Obviously your fallacy of choice.
-
4. it is a simple observation that reports of the antarctic are unreliable on a flat earth.
i can change quotes ooh look at me i'm so clever worship me also the earth is a ducking donut
we know the earth is flat for separate reasons, most of which are wrong. we know governments lie, not about everything, we know scientists are interested in money, but then who isn't, we know it is possible to spend a few weeks in alaska and declare you've just come back from the antarctic, and the same is true of anywhere else but not for 100% of everyone who goes there. all this is perfectly logical except for the parts which aren't.
Huge amount of cherry picking again. Obviously your fallacy of choice.
and your tactic of choice, along with most round earthers, seems to be assertion and no evidence.
try harder, later.
-
4. it is a simple observation that reports of the antarctic are unreliable on a flat earth.
i can change quotes ooh look at me i'm so clever worship me also the earth is a ducking donut
we know the earth is flat for separate reasons, most of which are wrong. we know governments lie, not about everything, we know scientists are interested in money, but then who isn't, we know it is possible to spend a few weeks in alaska and declare you've just come back from the antarctic, and the same is true of anywhere else but not for 100% of everyone who goes there. all this is perfectly logical except for the parts which aren't.
Huge amount of cherry picking again. Obviously your fallacy of choice.
and your tactic of choice, along with most round earthers, seems to be assertion and no evidence.
try harder, later.
You want evidence? You think I have no evidence earth is a torus? You're wrong.
-
4. it is a simple observation that reports of the antarctic are unreliable on a flat earth.
i can change quotes ooh look at me i'm so clever worship me also the earth is a ducking donut
we know the earth is flat for separate reasons, most of which are wrong. we know governments lie, not about everything, we know scientists are interested in money, but then who isn't, we know it is possible to spend a few weeks in alaska and declare you've just come back from the antarctic, and the same is true of anywhere else but not for 100% of everyone who goes there. all this is perfectly logical except for the parts which aren't.
Huge amount of cherry picking again. Obviously your fallacy of choice.
and your tactic of choice, along with most round earthers, seems to be assertion and no evidence.
try harder, later.
You want evidence? You think I have no evidence earth is a torus? You're wrong.
i'll wait for you to supply anything.
-
4. it is a simple observation that reports of the antarctic are unreliable on a flat earth.
i can change quotes ooh look at me i'm so clever worship me also the earth is a ducking donut
we know the earth is flat for separate reasons, most of which are wrong. we know governments lie, not about everything, we know scientists are interested in money, but then who isn't, we know it is possible to spend a few weeks in alaska and declare you've just come back from the antarctic, and the same is true of anywhere else but not for 100% of everyone who goes there. all this is perfectly logical except for the parts which aren't.
Huge amount of cherry picking again. Obviously your fallacy of choice.
and your tactic of choice, along with most round earthers, seems to be assertion and no evidence.
try harder, later.
You want evidence? You think I have no evidence earth is a torus? You're wrong.
i'll wait for you to supply anything.
1. On a toroidal earth, one would expect to see a horizon a few miles distant, which would obscure the sun as it set and ships would appear to sink over it. This is indeed what is observed: therefore, evidence.
2. On a toroidal earth, the force of gravity would act to pull objects and structures on the outer edge towards the centre of mass, in a direction perpendicular to the surface. This is indeed what is observed: therefore, evidence.
3. As the torus rotates, one would expect to see stars appear to rotate about two points in the night sky at 180 degrees to each other. This is what we see: therefore, evidence.
-
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?
-
Once again a discussion has been derailed by the vapid antics and disingenuous tactics of a flat brainer. I'm not responding to JRowe. He's proved beyond doubt he is either a troll or a halfwit.
-
Once again a discussion has been derailed by the vapid antics and disingenuous tactics of a flat brainer. I'm not responding to JRowe. He's proved beyond doubt he is either a troll or a halfwit.
I don't think he is a Troll...I do think there is something genuinely wrong with him though.
-
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?
What a silly request, you would have to personally ask each one of this 6,000,000 individually to find out if they believe flat earth theory. They might do as I do, I keep my mouth shut while I roam amongst the loons.
As far as the loons go they think I am also a ball earther.
-
Once again a discussion has been derailed by the vapid antics and disingenuous tactics of a flat brainer. I'm not responding to JRowe. He's proved beyond doubt he is either a troll or a halfwit.
i suggest you read the thread. i stayed on topic, answered the question, neil dragged it off course and started blabbing about donuts. round earths are at fault here, refusing to admit that speaks only about you.
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.
-
Once again a discussion has been derailed by the vapid antics and disingenuous tactics of a flat brainer. I'm not responding to JRowe. He's proved beyond doubt he is either a troll or a halfwit.
i suggest you read the thread. i stayed on topic, answered the question, neil dragged it off course and started blabbing about donuts. round earths are at fault here, refusing to admit that speaks only about you.
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.
This the last thing I am going to say to you because you are a waste of time. I took the time to post a thorough explanation of why you wouldn't see circumpolar stars on a flat Earth. You're immediate response was to be an obnoxious asshole. You then made some utterly meaningless remarks, as I have said before I can't explain why a meaningless statement is wrong. The fact that there are circumpolar stars annihilates flat Earth theory. You also completely failed to explain who the sun can be shining everywhere in Antarctica while not shining in the Arctic.
Flat Earth promoters I have encountered broadly fall into two categories. Those who simply withdraw from the discussion when they know they don't have an answer and those, like you, who just keep going with every more random and irrelevant statements. I have encountered a few like you and your tactics are profoundly dishonest. You make up the rules as you go along and have the audacity to claim that others are doing that to you. I can't even imagine what is going on in your head. I know I have been honest and I know I have stuck as much as possible to both logic and well established facts. You just throw mud and behave like a child. You get the same response eventually from almost everyone you talk to in here.
Are you genuinely proud of how you behave? I think you should seriously think about that. I say this with all seriousness, you have the behavioural profile of a psychological abuser. That stands whether you are a troll or not. You have major problems.
-
4. it is a simple observation that reports of the antarctic are unreliable on a flat earth.
i can change quotes ooh look at me i'm so clever worship me also the earth is a ducking donut
we know the earth is flat for separate reasons, most of which are wrong. we know governments lie, not about everything, we know scientists are interested in money, but then who isn't, we know it is possible to spend a few weeks in alaska and declare you've just come back from the antarctic, and the same is true of anywhere else but not for 100% of everyone who goes there. all this is perfectly logical except for the parts which aren't.
Huge amount of cherry picking again. Obviously your fallacy of choice.
and your tactic of choice, along with most round earthers, seems to be assertion and no evidence.
try harder, later.
You want evidence? You think I have no evidence earth is a torus? You're wrong.
i'll wait for you to supply anything.
1. On a toroidal earth, one would expect to see a horizon a few miles distant, which would obscure the sun as it set and ships would appear to sink over it. This is indeed what is observed: therefore, evidence.
2. On a toroidal earth, the force of gravity would act to pull objects and structures on the outer edge towards the centre of mass, in a direction perpendicular to the surface. This is indeed what is observed: therefore, evidence.
3. As the torus rotates, one would expect to see stars appear to rotate about two points in the night sky at 180 degrees to each other. This is what we see: therefore, evidence.
Also evidence for a spherical Earth. What evidence do you have that differentiates a toroid from a sphere?
-
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.....
;D
-
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.....
;D
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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 (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 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660101#msg1660101)
2. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
math alone is abstract. it takes data and interpretation in order to apply it to the real world, and it is those that i have a problem with.
finding the equations takes more resources than i have. i do not ask you to demonstrate and deduce the equations for your fantasy (even though you can appeal to others whose word you take blindly), i ask for the same courtesy.
-
math alone is abstract. it takes data and interpretation in order to apply it to the real world, and it is those that i have a problem with.
finding the equations takes more resources than i have. i do not ask you to demonstrate and deduce the equations for your fantasy (even though you can appeal to others whose word you take blindly), i ask for the same courtesy.
2+2=4, that is so abstract, I wonder how many experiments had to be done to figure that out. I know that you say you don't have the resources, and if that's the case then stop advertising your views as fact until math supports you. Until then you are just wasting the time of yourself and everyone around you.
-
math alone is abstract. it takes data and interpretation in order to apply it to the real world, and it is those that i have a problem with.
finding the equations takes more resources than i have. i do not ask you to demonstrate and deduce the equations for your fantasy (even though you can appeal to others whose word you take blindly), i ask for the same courtesy.
2+2=4, that is so abstract, I wonder how many experiments had to be done to figure that out. I know that you say you don't have the resources, and if that's the case then stop advertising your views as fact until math supports you. Until then you are just wasting the time of yourself and everyone around you.
think before you speak. of course it's abstract, what could you possibly apply that to? add a raindrop to a raindrop, you still only have one raindrop, because they combine. that is only relevant for discrete entities, which you can only verify with experimentation, or observation, and if you seriously think the kind of math you require is as simple as 2+2 you are lying, plain and simple.
think. please.
logic supports me. you're insistent on math, which is only part of logic, and you've decided to reject logic. the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
think. please, just think, you are asking the unnecessary, the absurd, and the meaningless.
-
"...that the degrees of latitude must diminish towards the poles, ...
What does "the degrees of latitude must diminish towards the poles" mean? Does it mean there are fewer degrees in a given distance (i.e. 60 nmi is less than a degree of latitude) or the distance between them is less (one degree is less than 60 nmi)?
This sort of florid but vague language is a perfect way to obfuscate.
-
math alone is abstract. it takes data and interpretation in order to apply it to the real world, and it is those that i have a problem with.
finding the equations takes more resources than i have. i do not ask you to demonstrate and deduce the equations for your fantasy (even though you can appeal to others whose word you take blindly), i ask for the same courtesy.
2+2=4, that is so abstract, I wonder how many experiments had to be done to figure that out. I know that you say you don't have the resources, and if that's the case then stop advertising your views as fact until math supports you. Until then you are just wasting the time of yourself and everyone around you.
think before you speak. of course it's abstract, what could you possibly apply that to? add a raindrop to a raindrop, you still only have one raindrop, because they combine. that is only relevant for discrete entities, which you can only verify with experimentation, or observation, and if you seriously think the kind of math you require is as simple as 2+2 you are lying, plain and simple.
think. please.
logic supports me. you're insistent on math, which is only part of logic, and you've decided to reject logic. the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
think. please, just think, you are asking the unnecessary, the absurd, and the meaningless.
Anything you can do with logic you can do with math, adding 2 raindrops together does give you 1 rain drop but that raindrop is twice as big as the raindrops that made it. I think that all of the other round Earthers and even a few flat earthers will agree with me on this.
-
math alone is abstract. it takes data and interpretation in order to apply it to the real world, and it is those that i have a problem with.
finding the equations takes more resources than i have. i do not ask you to demonstrate and deduce the equations for your fantasy (even though you can appeal to others whose word you take blindly), i ask for the same courtesy.
2+2=4, that is so abstract, I wonder how many experiments had to be done to figure that out. I know that you say you don't have the resources, and if that's the case then stop advertising your views as fact until math supports you. Until then you are just wasting the time of yourself and everyone around you.
think before you speak. of course it's abstract, what could you possibly apply that to? add a raindrop to a raindrop, you still only have one raindrop, because they combine. that is only relevant for discrete entities, which you can only verify with experimentation, or observation, and if you seriously think the kind of math you require is as simple as 2+2 you are lying, plain and simple.
think. please.
logic supports me. you're insistent on math, which is only part of logic, and you've decided to reject logic. the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
think. please, just think, you are asking the unnecessary, the absurd, and the meaningless.
Anything you can do with logic you can do with math, adding 2 raindrops together does give you 1 rain drop but that raindrop is twice as big as the raindrops that made it. I think that all of the other round Earthers and even a few flat earthers will agree with me on this.
i refer you to the bold. math is a written form of logic, but it relies on something to apply it to the real world. mathematically there are negative numbers, but find me one in reality, for example.
logic does not need mathematically. see, again, the bold.
-
math alone is abstract. it takes data and interpretation in order to apply it to the real world, and it is those that i have a problem with.
finding the equations takes more resources than i have. i do not ask you to demonstrate and deduce the equations for your fantasy (even though you can appeal to others whose word you take blindly), i ask for the same courtesy.
2+2=4, that is so abstract, I wonder how many experiments had to be done to figure that out. I know that you say you don't have the resources, and if that's the case then stop advertising your views as fact until math supports you. Until then you are just wasting the time of yourself and everyone around you.
think before you speak. of course it's abstract, what could you possibly apply that to? add a raindrop to a raindrop, you still only have one raindrop, because they combine. that is only relevant for discrete entities, which you can only verify with experimentation, or observation, and if you seriously think the kind of math you require is as simple as 2+2 you are lying, plain and simple.
think. please.
logic supports me. you're insistent on math, which is only part of logic, and you've decided to reject logic. the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
think. please, just think, you are asking the unnecessary, the absurd, and the meaningless.
Anything you can do with logic you can do with math, adding 2 raindrops together does give you 1 rain drop but that raindrop is twice as big as the raindrops that made it. I think that all of the other round Earthers and even a few flat earthers will agree with me on this.
Don't be too sure, I recall a hilarious thread about specifically adding raindrops and how that disproves math and modern science or something =D
-
math alone is abstract. it takes data and interpretation in order to apply it to the real world, and it is those that i have a problem with.
finding the equations takes more resources than i have. i do not ask you to demonstrate and deduce the equations for your fantasy (even though you can appeal to others whose word you take blindly), i ask for the same courtesy.
2+2=4, that is so abstract, I wonder how many experiments had to be done to figure that out. I know that you say you don't have the resources, and if that's the case then stop advertising your views as fact until math supports you. Until then you are just wasting the time of yourself and everyone around you.
think before you speak. of course it's abstract, what could you possibly apply that to? add a raindrop to a raindrop, you still only have one raindrop, because they combine. that is only relevant for discrete entities, which you can only verify with experimentation, or observation, and if you seriously think the kind of math you require is as simple as 2+2 you are lying, plain and simple.
think. please.
logic supports me. you're insistent on math, which is only part of logic, and you've decided to reject logic. the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
think. please, just think, you are asking the unnecessary, the absurd, and the meaningless.
Anything you can do with logic you can do with math, adding 2 raindrops together does give you 1 rain drop but that raindrop is twice as big as the raindrops that made it. I think that all of the other round Earthers and even a few flat earthers will agree with me on this.
i refer you to the bold. math is a written form of logic, but it relies on something to apply it to the real world. mathematically there are negative numbers, but find me one in reality, for example.
logic does not need mathematically. see, again, the bold.
Except logic is mathematics.
-
i refer you to the bold. math is a written form of logic, but it relies on something to apply it to the real world. mathematically there are negative numbers, but find me one in reality, for example.
logic does not need mathematically. see, again, the bold.
Computers can simulate causality and they do nothing but math.
Also, negative numbers do exist in the real world. If you have 2 apples and you take one away then you just added -1 apples and if you travel 5 feet forward then you go one foot backwards then you went a total of 4 feet because you moved one foot in the negative direction so it was a negative foot.
-
i refer you to the bold. math is a written form of logic, but it relies on something to apply it to the real world. mathematically there are negative numbers, but find me one in reality, for example.
logic does not need mathematically. see, again, the bold.
Computers can simulate causality and they do nothing but math.
Also, negative numbers do exist in the real world. If you have 2 apples and you take one away then you just added -1 apples and if you travel 5 feet forward then you go one foot backwards then you went a total of 4 feet because you moved one foot in the negative direction so it was a negative foot.
Don't forget negatively charged atoms.
-
i refer you to the bold. math is a written form of logic, but it relies on something to apply it to the real world. mathematically there are negative numbers, but find me one in reality, for example.
logic does not need mathematically. see, again, the bold.
Computers can simulate causality and they do nothing but math.
Also, negative numbers do exist in the real world. If you have 2 apples and you take one away then you just added -1 apples and if you travel 5 feet forward then you go one foot backwards then you went a total of 4 feet because you moved one foot in the negative direction so it was a negative foot.
Don't forget negatively charged atoms.
There is also negative electric charge and negative pressure.
-
Math is logic, but logic is not necessarily math. Logic can be philosophical as well. It is like the difference between a square and a rectangle.
-
Math is logic, but logic is not necessarily math. Logic can be philosophical as well. It is like the difference between a square and a rectangle.
The difference between a square and a rectangle is how many dimensions it occupies and that is totally a mathematical thing. Logic is math and math is logic.
-
A square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square. Sorry this flew over you head, Mikey. I did not think I had to explain this.
-
people. i repeat myself again:
the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
as for your examples, you are confusing units with negativity when it comes to atoms. subtract one able from two, you are moving one apple, you are not adding minus one apple. show me a photo of -1 apple. you might as well say walking backwards is negative velocity. this is a way of thinking about things, but it's semantics.
math is one way logic can be applied, but there is a difference between pure math and applied math. everyone knows this. you've even seen it yourself. adding one raindrop to one raindrop gives one raindrop: but twice the mass. but add one apple to one apple, you'll get two apples but they won't both have the same mass, so 1+1=stupid decimal. you need logic separate from math, base don observation, to see the difference.
math is all well and good, but you need something to apply it accurately before it describes anything. or are you saying any math description must automatically be true? in this case, the pull of 'gravity' is 2006739070942m/s/s. that's bs. why? nothing to do with mass, it's to do with observation.
think. please.
-
Math is logic, but logic is not necessarily math. Logic can be philosophical as well. It is like the difference between a square and a rectangle.
The difference between a square and a rectangle is how many dimensions it occupies and that is totally a mathematical thing. Logic is math and math is logic.
Huh? They're both two dimensional.
-
Math is logic, but logic is not necessarily math. Logic can be philosophical as well. It is like the difference between a square and a rectangle.
The difference between a square and a rectangle is how many dimensions it occupies and that is totally a mathematical thing. Logic is math and math is logic.
Huh? They're both two dimensional.
Oh, for some reason I thought he said cube, not rectangle. I don't know how that happened.
The difference between a square and a rectangle is that a square has edges that are all the same size, which is still totally a math thing.
-
people. i repeat myself again:
the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
as for your examples, you are confusing units with negativity when it comes to atoms. subtract one able from two, you are moving one apple, you are not adding minus one apple. show me a photo of -1 apple. you might as well say walking backwards is negative velocity. this is a way of thinking about things, but it's semantics.
math is one way logic can be applied, but there is a difference between pure math and applied math. everyone knows this. you've even seen it yourself. adding one raindrop to one raindrop gives one raindrop: but twice the mass. but add one apple to one apple, you'll get two apples but they won't both have the same mass, so 1+1=stupid decimal. you need logic separate from math, base don observation, to see the difference.
math is all well and good, but you need something to apply it accurately before it describes anything. or are you saying any math description must automatically be true? in this case, the pull of 'gravity' is 2006739070942m/s/s. that's bs. why? nothing to do with mass, it's to do with observation.
think. please.
Actually if you are working with apples and measuring mass it would not be 1+1= some stupid decimal because you are adding together the number of apples and expecting the output to be a mass, that's not how it works. If you are dealing with mass then you have to add the mass of the two apples and you will get their combined mass, which is definitely math. Nobody ever said that logic was a tangible thing, it doesn't physically exist in the real world but it is followed by everything in the universe, including your own mind. If you can conceive of an idea, it can be described by math. It may not be provable, but it can be described.
Describing something with math does not prove it, and the reason I am only asking you to mathematically describe the aether is so it can be tested by making a prediction and seeing if it comes true.
-
people. i repeat myself again:
the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
as for your examples, you are confusing units with negativity when it comes to atoms. subtract one able from two, you are moving one apple, you are not adding minus one apple. show me a photo of -1 apple. you might as well say walking backwards is negative velocity. this is a way of thinking about things, but it's semantics.
math is one way logic can be applied, but there is a difference between pure math and applied math. everyone knows this. you've even seen it yourself. adding one raindrop to one raindrop gives one raindrop: but twice the mass. but add one apple to one apple, you'll get two apples but they won't both have the same mass, so 1+1=stupid decimal. you need logic separate from math, base don observation, to see the difference.
math is all well and good, but you need something to apply it accurately before it describes anything. or are you saying any math description must automatically be true? in this case, the pull of 'gravity' is 2006739070942m/s/s. that's bs. why? nothing to do with mass, it's to do with observation.
think. please.
Actually if you are working with apples and measuring mass it would not be 1+1= some stupid decimal because you are adding together the number of apples and expecting the output to be a mass, that's not how it works. If you are dealing with mass then you have to add the mass of the two apples and you will get their combined mass, which is definitely math. Nobody ever said that logic was a tangible thing, it doesn't physically exist in the real world but it is followed by everything in the universe, including your own mind. If you can conceive of an idea, it can be described by math. It may not be provable, but it can be described.
Describing something with math does not prove it, and the reason I am only asking you to mathematically describe the aether is so it can be tested by making a prediction and seeing if it comes true.
the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
how many times does something need to be said for you people to respond to it?
math is not necessary to logically deduce something. stop moving the goalposts. i do not have the resources to come up with detailed math or equations. i have said this before. it is still easy to deduce from observation several facts.
i have offered possible experiments, but the resources they would take for explicit confirmation are extreme (measuring vertical refraction from a balloon would confirm the existence of whirlpools). this is why i prefer simple logic.
-
the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
how many times does something need to be said for you people to respond to it?
math is not necessary to logically deduce something. stop moving the goalposts. i do not have the resources to come up with detailed math or equations. i have said this before. it is still easy to deduce from observation several facts.
i have offered possible experiments, but the resources they would take for explicit confirmation are extreme (measuring vertical refraction from a balloon would confirm the existence of whirlpools). this is why i prefer simple logic.
Actually if you are working with apples and measuring mass it would not be 1+1= some stupid decimal because you are adding together the number of apples and expecting the output to be a mass, that's not how it works. If you are dealing with mass then you have to add the mass of the two apples and you will get their combined mass, which is definitely math. Nobody ever said that logic was a tangible thing, it doesn't physically exist in the real world but it is followed by everything in the universe, including your own mind. If you can conceive of an idea, it can be described by math. It may not be provable, but it can be described.
-
the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
how many times does something need to be said for you people to respond to it?
math is not necessary to logically deduce something. stop moving the goalposts. i do not have the resources to come up with detailed math or equations. i have said this before. it is still easy to deduce from observation several facts.
i have offered possible experiments, but the resources they would take for explicit confirmation are extreme (measuring vertical refraction from a balloon would confirm the existence of whirlpools). this is why i prefer simple logic.
Actually if you are working with apples and measuring mass it would not be 1+1= some stupid decimal because you are adding together the number of apples and expecting the output to be a mass, that's not how it works. If you are dealing with mass then you have to add the mass of the two apples and you will get their combined mass, which is definitely math. Nobody ever said that logic was a tangible thing, it doesn't physically exist in the real world but it is followed by everything in the universe, including your own mind. If you can conceive of an idea, it can be described by math. It may not be provable, but it can be described.
the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
how many times does something need to be said for you people to respond to it?
-
the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
how many times does something need to be said for you people to respond to it?
math is not necessary to logically deduce something. stop moving the goalposts. i do not have the resources to come up with detailed math or equations. i have said this before. it is still easy to deduce from observation several facts.
i have offered possible experiments, but the resources they would take for explicit confirmation are extreme (measuring vertical refraction from a balloon would confirm the existence of whirlpools). this is why i prefer simple logic.
Actually if you are working with apples and measuring mass it would not be 1+1= some stupid decimal because you are adding together the number of apples and expecting the output to be a mass, that's not how it works. If you are dealing with mass then you have to add the mass of the two apples and you will get their combined mass, which is definitely math. Nobody ever said that logic was a tangible thing, it doesn't physically exist in the real world but it is followed by everything in the universe, including your own mind. If you can conceive of an idea, it can be described by math. It may not be provable, but it can be described.
the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
how many times does something need to be said for you people to respond to it?
Yes.
-
the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
how many times does something need to be said for you people to respond to it?
math is not necessary to logically deduce something. stop moving the goalposts. i do not have the resources to come up with detailed math or equations. i have said this before. it is still easy to deduce from observation several facts.
i have offered possible experiments, but the resources they would take for explicit confirmation are extreme (measuring vertical refraction from a balloon would confirm the existence of whirlpools). this is why i prefer simple logic.
Actually if you are working with apples and measuring mass it would not be 1+1= some stupid decimal because you are adding together the number of apples and expecting the output to be a mass, that's not how it works. If you are dealing with mass then you have to add the mass of the two apples and you will get their combined mass, which is definitely math. Nobody ever said that logic was a tangible thing, it doesn't physically exist in the real world but it is followed by everything in the universe, including your own mind. If you can conceive of an idea, it can be described by math. It may not be provable, but it can be described.
the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
how many times does something need to be said for you people to respond to it?
Yes.
thank you for finally answering. please provide the mathematical description.
-
Ahhh... huge bolded font. That must mean the claim is undoubtedly true LOL. Anything posted in a standard-sized font is obviously suspect.
Is this guy for real? ;D
-
Ahhh... huge bolded font. That must mean the claim is undoubtedly true LOL. Anything posted in a standard-sized font is obviously suspect.
Is this guy for real? ;D
In his defense that was a question, not a claim, although it was a question that I answered at least 2-3 times before.
-
Ahhh... huge bolded font. That must mean the claim is undoubtedly true LOL. Anything posted in a standard-sized font is obviously suspect.
Is this guy for real? ;D
In his defense that was a question, not a claim, although it was a question that I answered at least 2-3 times before.
tell me where. you repeatedly said 'all logic is mathematical' and i'm still waiting for how those laws could possibly be mathematical.
that is, unless you've just defined 'math' to be 'logic' and my logical deductions based on observation are therefore perfectly sound.
-
tell me where. you repeatedly said 'all logic is mathematical' and i'm still waiting for how those laws could possibly be mathematical.
that is, unless you've just defined 'math' to be 'logic' and my logical deductions based on observation are therefore perfectly sound.
Do you believe that the behavior of electricity is mathematicaly predictable? If not then you have never experimented with electricity. Your computer uses the properties of electricity to do calculations, and your computer can simulate non contradiction and causation. In fact, it's possible (but really hard) to simulate such things on paper with a time variable.
-
tell me where. you repeatedly said 'all logic is mathematical' and i'm still waiting for how those laws could possibly be mathematical.
that is, unless you've just defined 'math' to be 'logic' and my logical deductions based on observation are therefore perfectly sound.
Do you believe that the behavior of electricity is mathematicaly predictable? If not then you have never experimented with electricity. Your computer uses the properties of electricity to do calculations, and your computer can simulate non contradiction and causation. In fact, it's possible (but really hard) to simulate such things on paper with a time variable.
look at that cop out.
if you want to use computer logic:
if {the earth is accelerating}
then {something must be causing acceleration}
alternatively just apply the law of causation. there you go, a mathematical explanation for aether. you reject the fact we live on a flat earth, there's logic for that too. i refer you to the faq once more.
please don't move the goalposts again.
-
look at that cop out.
if you want to use computer logic:
if {the earth is accelerating}
then {something must be causing acceleration}
alternatively just apply the law of causation. there you go, a mathematical explanation for aether. you reject the fact we live on a flat earth, there's logic for that too. i refer you to the faq once more.
please don't move the goalposts again.
At least round earthers don't jump to conclusions like flat earthers and we admit that we don't know what is causing the universe to accelerate, but you hold to the aether as if it actually had even so much as a spread of evidence to support it.
if {earth == flat}
Sunsets = false
Southern constellations = impossible
Constant angular size of objects in the sky = makes no sense
else
You = wrong
-
look at that cop out.
if you want to use computer logic:
if {the earth is accelerating}
then {something must be causing acceleration}
alternatively just apply the law of causation. there you go, a mathematical explanation for aether. you reject the fact we live on a flat earth, there's logic for that too. i refer you to the faq once more.
please don't move the goalposts again.
At least round earthers don't jump to conclusions like flat earthers and we admit that we don't know what is causing the universe to accelerate, but you hold to the aether as if it actually had even so much as a spread of evidence to support it.
if {earth == flat}
Sunsets = false
Southern constellations = impossible
Constant angular size of objects in the sky = makes no sense
else
You = wrong
This.