-
The scientist today are really stupid, if you look at their track record. For decades they believed and did research work and Ph’d on the Piltdown Man?
If this group of people were stupid enough to believe that lie, when why would you expect them the smart enough to distinguish another lie?
Their track record has proven that if something fits into their narrative, they will believe it.
The Piltdown Man was a phony, but the scientific community did not investigate it, but spend thousands of dollars in research to support it.
Know, the same hold true to the scientists that believe in the heliocentric hypothesis. If you give them enough CGI videos and some complicated equations, they will believe it, without questions, as long as it fits into their narrative.
They will also defend it to the max.
So bottom line, can the scientific community be trusted that they don’t believe in lies?
-
The scientist today are really stupid, if you look at their track record. For decades they believed and did research work and Ph’d on the Piltdown Man?
If this group of people were stupid enough to believe that lie, when why would you expect them the smart enough to distinguish another lie?
Their track record has proven that if something fits into their narrative, they will believe it.
The Piltdown Man was a phony, but the scientific community did not investigate it, but spend thousands of dollars in research to support it.
Know, the same hold true to the scientists that believe in the heliocentric hypothesis. If you give them enough CGI videos and some complicated equations, they will believe it, without questions, as long as it fits into their narrative.
They will also defend it to the max.
So bottom line, can the scientific community be trusted that they don’t believe in lies?
As opposed to some guy on YouTube who can't give a reasonable explanation for sunsets?
Yes.
-
The scientific community has a lot of wins under their collective belt.
And there neat thing about science? Even when there is a forgery like the Piltdown Man, the truth comes out. It's worth pointing out, there was a lot of doubt among scientists during the 40-year span of that particular scam. Starting as early as 1915.
-
The scientist today are really stupid, if you look at their track record. For decades they believed and did research work and Ph’d on the Piltdown Man?
If this group of people were stupid enough to believe that lie, when why would you expect them the smart enough to distinguish another lie?
Their track record has proven that if something fits into their narrative, they will believe it.
The Piltdown Man was a phony, but the scientific community did not investigate it, but spend thousands of dollars in research to support it.
Know, the same hold true to the scientists that believe in the heliocentric hypothesis. If you give them enough CGI videos and some complicated equations, they will believe it, without questions, as long as it fits into their narrative.
They will also defend it to the max.
So bottom line, can the scientific community be trusted that they don’t believe in lies?
As opposed to some guy on YouTube who can't give a reasonable explanation for sunsets?
Yes.
You are talking about one person and I am talking about a whole scientific community. The Best, of the best, of the best, got coned into believing into a lie.
But not all people believe in the lie, the people that you ridicule these days, the Christians, the Jews and the Muslims, knew that the Piltdown Man was a phony, because we knew our history from the Bible.
So why should we believe you on the Heliocentric Hypothesis, when we have so much science in the bible?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71376.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71377.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71378.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71379.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71380.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71381.0
-
And your science we know that it does not hold water.
You can't even draw a free body diagram
-
And your science we know that it does not hold water.
You can't even draw a free body diagram
You have no valid science.
-
And your science we know that it does not hold water.
You can't even draw a free body diagram
You have no valid science.
My science is valid and in my 'model" of the Earth, I can draw you any Free Body diagram your heart desired to have.
-
And your science we know that it does not hold water.
You can't even draw a free body diagram
You have no valid science.
My science is valid and in my 'model" of the Earth, I can draw you any Free Body diagram your heart desired to have.
Then draw one on Polaris.
-
And your science we know that it does not hold water.
You can't even draw a free body diagram
You have no valid science.
My science is valid and in my 'model" of the Earth, I can draw you any Free Body diagram your heart desired to have.
Then draw one on Polaris.
Please supply relative information, mass and diameter in kg and km
-
And your science we know that it does not hold water.
You can't even draw a free body diagram
You have no valid science.
My science is valid and in my 'model" of the Earth, I can draw you any Free Body diagram your heart desired to have.
Then draw one on Polaris.
Please supply relative information, mass and diameter in kg and km
How would I know, the question how far a photon could travel hasn't been answered yet.
-
And your science we know that it does not hold water.
You can't even draw a free body diagram
You have no valid science.
My science is valid and in my 'model" of the Earth, I can draw you any Free Body diagram your heart desired to have.
Then draw one on Polaris.
You can't draw a FBD of a light source, but if Polaris was a star, the it would something like this that I found on the web
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/258239693_fig3_Figure-3-FREE-BODY-DIAGRAM-OF-STAR
-
The scientist today are really stupid, if you look at their track record. For decades they believed and did research work and Ph’d on the Piltdown Man?
A few may have, for a while. So what?
Why are you so angry at scientists? Were the nerdy kids mean to you in school? Are you unable to win an argument with scientists, so the only option you see is to lash out and call them stupid? Boy, that stings! ::)
If this group of people were stupid enough to believe that lie, when why would you expect them the smart enough to distinguish another lie?
They were smart enough to recognize, and then conclusively show, it was a hoax.
Why the attitude?
Their track record has proven that if something fits into their narrative, they will believe it.
Sometimes. In science, though, until there is independent confirming data, conclusions will be suspect.
The Piltdown Man was a phony, but the scientific community did not investigate it, but spend thousands of dollars in research to support it.
Citation needed.
If no investigation was conducted, how was the hoax discovered and put to rest? Your statement makes no sense.
Know, the same hold true to the scientists that believe in the heliocentric hypothesis. If you give them enough CGI videos and some complicated equations, they will believe it, without questions, as long as it fits into their narrative.
Well, there's the small matter that the heliocentric model of the solar system describes observations and provides reliable (and testable!) predictions about what hasn't happened yet.
Did you know that the heliocentric model of the solar system has been accepted as correct for centuries, but practical CGI has existed for only two or three decades. If your claim were correct, why did anyone believe it before the 1980s? Your assertion makes no sense whatever.
If it takes complicated equations to accurately describe reality, then they will be useful insofar as they do describe reality. Why do you see that as a problem? Do feel intimidated by people who worked harder than you did when they had a chance to learn mathematics, and what they can do with it? Tough.
They will also defend it to the max.\
Sure. Why not? It works well. If something demonstrably better comes along, the heliocentric model will be replaced by the better model.
So bottom line, can the scientific community be trusted that they don’t believe in lies?
Occasionally data is falsified; when it happens, good research will bring it to light. It would be pretty difficult to falsify data about the shape of the earth and the motion of the earth and planets because that data is constantly being tested by a large number of people.
Going back to your initial assertion, for the entirety of its existence, Piltdown Man was viewed with quite a bit of skepticism. In all areas of research, some paths of investigation are dead ends. Eventually, lines that prove useful, survive, while others die out. That, incidentally, is how evolution works.
-
The scientist today are really stupid, if you look at their track record. For decades they believed and did research work and Ph’d on the Piltdown Man?
A few may have, for a while. So what?
Why are you so angry at scientists? Were the nerdy kids mean to you in school? Are you unable to win an argument with scientists, so the only option you see is to lash out and call them stupid? Boy, that stings! ::)
If this group of people were stupid enough to believe that lie, when why would you expect them the smart enough to distinguish another lie?
They were smart enough to recognize, and then conclusively show, it was a hoax.
Why the attitude?
Their track record has proven that if something fits into their narrative, they will believe it.
Sometimes. In science, though, until there is independent confirming data, conclusions will be suspect.
The Piltdown Man was a phony, but the scientific community did not investigate it, but spend thousands of dollars in research to support it.
Citation needed.
If no investigation was conducted, how was the hoax discovered and put to rest? Your statement makes no sense.
Know, the same hold true to the scientists that believe in the heliocentric hypothesis. If you give them enough CGI videos and some complicated equations, they will believe it, without questions, as long as it fits into their narrative.
Well, there's the small matter that the heliocentric model of the solar system describes observations and provides reliable (and testable!) predictions about what hasn't happened yet.
Did you know that the heliocentric model of the solar system has been accepted as correct for centuries, but practical CGI has existed for only two or three decades. If your claim were correct, why did anyone believe it before the 1980s? Your assertion makes no sense whatever.
If it takes complicated equations to accurately describe reality, then they will be useful insofar as they do describe reality. Why do you see that as a problem? Do feel intimidated by people who worked harder than you did when they had a chance to learn mathematics, and what they can do with it? Tough.
They will also defend it to the max.\
Sure. Why not? It works well. If something demonstrably better comes along, the heliocentric model will be replaced by the better model.
So bottom line, can the scientific community be trusted that they don’t believe in lies?
Occasionally data is falsified; when it happens, good research will bring it to light. It would be pretty difficult to falsify data about the shape of the earth and the motion of the earth and planets because that data is constantly being tested by a large number of people.
Going back to your initial assertion, for the entirety of its existence, Piltdown Man was viewed with quite a bit of skepticism. In all areas of research, some paths of investigation are dead ends. Eventually, lines that prove useful, survive, while others die out. That, incidentally, is how evolution works.
A few?? It was the whole community and they even founded research on the subject. People even got Phd on the matter. Oh by the way, did the scientific community ever recall those PhD's...
The stupidity was not that much that they believed him, but that they did not even bother to inspect the bones, but just accepted his finding. They did not suspect his findings but trusted it blindly.
After decades of not investigating the findings, one man had the courage to demand to see the original bones, and he proved that it was a phony .
You can read about it here -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
-
You are talking about one person and I am talking about a whole scientific community. The Best, of the best, of the best, got coned into believing into a lie.
Are you suggesting that paleontology is the whole scientific community?
My science is valid and in my 'model" of the Earth, I can draw you any Free Body diagram your heart desired to have.
How about a FBD of the sun and moon orbiting above the flat earth?
-
You are talking about one person and I am talking about a whole scientific community. The Best, of the best, of the best, got coned into believing into a lie.
Are you suggesting that paleontology is the whole scientific community?
My science is valid and in my 'model" of the Earth, I can draw you any Free Body diagram your heart desired to have.
How about a FBD of the sun and moon orbiting above the flat earth?
At the time they were THE scientific community that everybody paid attention too.
I just realize why you never drew me the Free Body Diagram of the airplane when landing.
You have no idea what a FBD is and how to draw it.
A free Body diagram is just 1 object that has all the forces that interact with it.
You can't have multiple object in 1 free body diagram
Are you stupid or something?????
And on this note, Good night!!!
-
You are talking about one person and I am talking about a whole scientific community. The Best, of the best, of the best, got coned into believing into a lie.
Are you suggesting that paleontology is the whole scientific community?
At the time they were THE scientific community that everybody paid attention too.
So paleontologists did all of the astronomy and particle physics of the day? Good to know. ::)
-
You are talking about one person and I am talking about a whole scientific community. The Best, of the best, of the best, got coned into believing into a lie.
Are you suggesting that paleontology is the whole scientific community?
Or that anthropology is all of paleontology?
-
You've made mistakes, haven't you? Everyone has. It's not stupidity, it's humanity. The problem is and will always be the people who refuse to admit the possibility that they are wrong.
-
The scientist today are really stupid, if you look at their track record. For decades they believed and did research work and Ph’d on the Piltdown Man?
If this group of people were stupid enough to believe that lie, when why would you expect them the smart enough to distinguish another lie?
Their track record has proven that if something fits into their narrative, they will believe it.
The Piltdown Man was a phony, but the scientific community did not investigate it, but spend thousands of dollars in research to support it.
Know, the same hold true to the scientists that believe in the heliocentric hypothesis. If you give them enough CGI videos and some complicated equations, they will believe it, without questions, as long as it fits into their narrative.
They will also defend it to the max.
So bottom line, can the scientific community be trusted that they don’t believe in lies?
As opposed to some guy on YouTube who can't give a reasonable explanation for sunsets?
Yes.
You are talking about one person and I am talking about a whole scientific community. The Best, of the best, of the best, got coned into believing into a lie.
But not all people believe in the lie, the people that you ridicule these days, the Christians, the Jews and the Muslims, knew that the Piltdown Man was a phony, because we knew our history from the Bible.
So why should we believe you on the Heliocentric Hypothesis, when we have so much science in the bible?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71376.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71377.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71378.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71379.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71380.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71381.0
No I'm talking about every flat earth believer. No legit explanation for sunset.
I never ridiculed anyone because they were Christian or Jewish or Muslim.
-
A few?? It was the whole community and they even founded research on the subject.
Citation needed. It wasn't even the whole anthropology community, at least not for very long.
People even got Phd on the matter. Oh by the way, did the scientific community ever recall those PhD's...
Which ones, specifically?
Regardless, probably not. Why should they? Was the research presented in a dissertation itself fraudulent? Reaching a conclusion later found to be invalid (or moot) is not in and of itself fraud.
The stupidity was not that much that they believed him, but that they did not even bother to inspect the bones, but just accepted his finding. They did not suspect his findings but trusted it blindly.
Citation needed.
The Wikipedia reference you do cite below says:
Almost from the outset, Woodward's reconstruction of the Piltdown fragments was strongly challenged by some researchers. At the Royal College of Surgeons, copies of the same fragments used by the British Museum in their reconstruction were used to produce an entirely different model, one that in brain size and other features resembled a modern human.
From the outset, some scientists expressed skepticism about the Piltdown find (see above).
In 1912, the majority of the scientific community believed the Piltdown Man was the “missing link” between apes and humans. However, over time the Piltdown Man lost its validity, as other discoveries such as Taung Child and Peking Man were found. R. W. Ehrich and G. M. Henderson note, “To those who are not completely disillusioned by the work of their predecessors, the disqualification of the Piltdown skull changes little in the broad evolutionary pattern. The validity of the specimen has always been questioned.”[27] Eventually, during the 1940s and 1950s, more advanced dating technologies, such as the fluorine absorption test, proved scientifically that this skull was actually a fraud.
After decades of not investigating the findings, one man had the courage to demand to see the original bones, and he proved that it was a phony .
So you now admit that it was investigated. Thanks for clearing that up. Why did you feel the need to lie about this in the first place?
The Piltdown Man was a phony, but the scientific community did not investigate it, but spend thousands of dollars in research to support it.
This is even accepting your assertion that only one man investigated, which also seems to be fraudulent.
In November 1953, Time magazine published evidence gathered variously by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner proving that the Piltdown Man was a forgery[12] and demonstrating that the fossil was a composite of three distinct species.
Why did take until the '50s?
The validity of the specimen has always been questioned.”[27] Eventually, during the 1940s and 1950s, more advanced dating technologies, such as the fluorine absorption test, proved scientifically that this skull was actually a fraud.
This is from the reference you provided, remember?
You can read about it here -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
Already had. You have a somewhat "interesting" interpretation of what that article said, but it's good to know that you're satisfied with the reliability of that source.
You never answered my question: why so much anger?
-
The scientist today are really stupid, if you look at their track record. For decades they believed and did research work and Ph’d on the Piltdown Man?
If this group of people were stupid enough to believe that lie, when why would you expect them the smart enough to distinguish another lie?
Their track record has proven that if something fits into their narrative, they will believe it.
The Piltdown Man was a phony, but the scientific community did not investigate it, but spend thousands of dollars in research to support it.
Know, the same hold true to the scientists that believe in the heliocentric hypothesis. If you give them enough CGI videos and some complicated equations, they will believe it, without questions, as long as it fits into their narrative.
They will also defend it to the max.
So bottom line, can the scientific community be trusted that they don’t believe in lies?
As opposed to some guy on YouTube who can't give a reasonable explanation for sunsets?
Yes.
You are talking about one person and I am talking about a whole scientific community. The Best, of the best, of the best, got coned into believing into a lie.
But not all people believe in the lie, the people that you ridicule these days, the Christians, the Jews and the Muslims, knew that the Piltdown Man was a phony, because we knew our history from the Bible.
So why should we believe you on the Heliocentric Hypothesis, when we have so much science in the bible?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71376.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71377.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71378.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71379.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71380.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71381.0
And what has any of that to do with the Heliocentric Globe?
You make the ridiculous statement "the same hold true to the scientists that believe in the heliocentric hypothesis. If you give them enough CGI videos and some complicated equations, they will believe it, without questions, as long as it fits into their narrative."
I am afraid the the Heliocentric Globe greatly predates any thought of
"CGI videos and some complicated equations" so stop talking total rubbish.
The Globe was the accepted shape of the earth from around 300 BC, both in secular circles and in the early Church, as shown by the statements of The Venerable Bede below.
Even the Heliocentric Globe was proposed around the same time, but rejected for largely philosophical reasons.
It gradually became the recognised model from the early 1600's, well before there was any serious thought of evolution etc.
So many Flat Earthers claim that their belief in the flat stationary earth is based on Scripture.
But, how many Christians believe in a flat stationary earth? Not very many.
I will grant that many, just as in the general population, do not give the matter much thought, but there are many that do!
You really need to look at places like creation.com (http://creation.com).
Look at what they think of the modern idea of a flat earth in this post (which you :D might have seen before :D)
After my previous post, I noticed that in this forum the Spherical Earther’s and Evolutionist liked the throw around irrelevant scientific information and pull things out of the hat, just like a magician does to fool the public, so this one is just for you.
What came first the chicken or the egg?
As a Flat Earther we believe in a Creator, God, we believe that the chicken came first because GOD created male and female which mated to have off-spring. End of story for us!!!
But for you on the other hand the issue is very important, since Evolution is the creation of life, the foundation of your Religion.
Don't you dare to pretend to know what I believe! You are completely deceptive when you claim that
"But for you . . . . . . . . since Evolution is the creation of life, the foundation of your Religion."
That is the ultimate "Straw-man-argument"!
You falsely claim that your opponent believes something, then argue against your own false claim.
Could you please revise your claim, because many flat earthers are atheists and many Globe supporters are Christians.
What on earth is the connection between Evolution and the shape of the earth?
There is none at all, and the Globe was the shape of the earth accepted from around 300 BC! Long before evolution was thought of.
The organisation "Creation Ministeries" is as big a supporter of the "young earth creation" of Genesis as you will find anywhere,
but you will find that they are almost as vehemently opposed to the idea of a Flat Earth as they are to Evolution.
Maybe you should learn a bit of history: From what I can see by far the majority of Christians believe in the Globe.
Probably not all give the matter much thought, but many certainly do, as in The flat earth myth
. . . . . .
flat-earth belief was extremely rare in the Church. The flat earth’s two main proponents were obscure figures named Lactantius (c. 240 – c. 320) and Cosmas Indicopleustes (6th century; the last name means “voyager to India”). However, they were hugely outweighed by tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, scientists, and rulers who unambiguously affirmed that the earth was round. Russell documents accounts supporting earth’s sphericity from numerous medieval church scholars such as friar Roger Bacon (1220–1292), inventor of spectacles; leading medieval scientists such as John Buridan (1301–1358) and Nicholas Oresme (1320–1382); the monk John of Sacrobosco (c. 1195–c. 1256) who wrote Treatise on the Sphere, and many more.
. . . . . . . . .
One of the best-known proponents of a globe-shaped earth was the early English monk, theologian and historian, the Venerable Bede (673–735), who popularized the common BC/AD dating system. Less well known was that he was also a leading astronomer of his day.
In his book On the Reckoning of Time (De temporum ratione), among other things he calculated the creation of the world to be in 3952 BC, showed how to calculate the date of Easter, and explicitly taught that the earth was round. From this, he showed why the length of days and nights changed with the seasons, and how tides were dragged by the moon. Bede was the first with this insight, while Galileo explained the tides wrongly centuries later.
Here is what Bede said about the shape of the earth—round “like a ball” not “like a shield”:
“We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth’s circumference will represent the figure of a perfect globe. … For truly it is an orb placed in the centre of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its centre with perfect roundness on all sides.”
More in The flat earth myth. (http://creation.com/flat-earth-myth)
And more in a similar vein:
Creation Ministries, The flat-earth myth and creationism (http://creation.com/the-flat-earth-myth-and-creationism)
A flat earth, and other nonsense, Dealing with ideas that would not exist were it not for the Internet (http://creation.com/refuting-flat-earth)
Creation Ministries, Flat earth leader is an evolutionist! (http://creation.com/flat-earth-leader-is-an-evolutionist)
So please stop this silly connection between the shape of the earth and evolution - there is none.
So please explain on what basis you claim "How stupid are the scientist that believe in the Heliocentric Model?"
You don't seem to have justified your claim in the slightest.
Besides, the Heliocentric Globe model works, and none of the numerous flat earth models explain what we see!
-
The scientist today are really stupid, if you look at their track record. For decades they believed and did research work and Ph’d on the Piltdown Man?
If this group of people were stupid enough to believe that lie, when why would you expect them the smart enough to distinguish another lie?
Their track record has proven that if something fits into their narrative, they will believe it.
The Piltdown Man was a phony, but the scientific community did not investigate it, but spend thousands of dollars in research to support it.
Know, the same hold true to the scientists that believe in the heliocentric hypothesis. If you give them enough CGI videos and some complicated equations, they will believe it, without questions, as long as it fits into their narrative.
They will also defend it to the max.
So bottom line, can the scientific community be trusted that they don’t believe in lies?
As opposed to some guy on YouTube who can't give a reasonable explanation for sunsets?
Yes.
You are talking about one person and I am talking about a whole scientific community. The Best, of the best, of the best, got coned into believing into a lie.
But not all people believe in the lie, the people that you ridicule these days, the Christians, the Jews and the Muslims, knew that the Piltdown Man was a phony, because we knew our history from the Bible.
So why should we believe you on the Heliocentric Hypothesis, when we have so much science in the bible?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71376.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71377.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71378.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71379.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71380.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71381.0
And what has any of that to do with the Heliocentric Globe?
You make the ridiculous statement "the same hold true to the scientists that believe in the heliocentric hypothesis. If you give them enough CGI videos and some complicated equations, they will believe it, without questions, as long as it fits into their narrative."
I am afraid the the Heliocentric Globe greatly predates any thought of
"CGI videos and some complicated equations" so stop talking total rubbish.
The Globe was the accepted shape of the earth from around 300 BC, both in secular circles and in the early Church, as shown by the statements of The Venerable Bede below.
Even the Heliocentric Globe was proposed around the same time, but rejected for largely philosophical reasons.
It gradually became the recognised model from the early 1600's, well before there was any serious thought of evolution etc.
So many Flat Earthers claim that their belief in the flat stationary earth is based on Scripture.
But, how many Christians believe in a flat stationary earth? Not very many.
I will grant that many, just as in the general population, do not give the matter much thought, but there are many that do!
You really need to look at places like creation.com (http://creation.com).
Look at what they think of the modern idea of a flat earth in this post (which you :D might have seen before :D)
After my previous post, I noticed that in this forum the Spherical Earther’s and Evolutionist liked the throw around irrelevant scientific information and pull things out of the hat, just like a magician does to fool the public, so this one is just for you.
What came first the chicken or the egg?
As a Flat Earther we believe in a Creator, God, we believe that the chicken came first because GOD created male and female which mated to have off-spring. End of story for us!!!
But for you on the other hand the issue is very important, since Evolution is the creation of life, the foundation of your Religion.
Don't you dare to pretend to know what I believe! You are completely deceptive when you claim that
"But for you . . . . . . . . since Evolution is the creation of life, the foundation of your Religion."
That is the ultimate "Straw-man-argument"!
You falsely claim that your opponent believes something, then argue against your own false claim.
Could you please revise your claim, because many flat earthers are atheists and many Globe supporters are Christians.
What on earth is the connection between Evolution and the shape of the earth?
There is none at all, and the Globe was the shape of the earth accepted from around 300 BC! Long before evolution was thought of.
The organisation "Creation Ministeries" is as big a supporter of the "young earth creation" of Genesis as you will find anywhere,
but you will find that they are almost as vehemently opposed to the idea of a Flat Earth as they are to Evolution.
Maybe you should learn a bit of history: From what I can see by far the majority of Christians believe in the Globe.
Probably not all give the matter much thought, but many certainly do, as in The flat earth myth
. . . . . .
flat-earth belief was extremely rare in the Church. The flat earth’s two main proponents were obscure figures named Lactantius (c. 240 – c. 320) and Cosmas Indicopleustes (6th century; the last name means “voyager to India”). However, they were hugely outweighed by tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, scientists, and rulers who unambiguously affirmed that the earth was round. Russell documents accounts supporting earth’s sphericity from numerous medieval church scholars such as friar Roger Bacon (1220–1292), inventor of spectacles; leading medieval scientists such as John Buridan (1301–1358) and Nicholas Oresme (1320–1382); the monk John of Sacrobosco (c. 1195–c. 1256) who wrote Treatise on the Sphere, and many more.
. . . . . . . . .
One of the best-known proponents of a globe-shaped earth was the early English monk, theologian and historian, the Venerable Bede (673–735), who popularized the common BC/AD dating system. Less well known was that he was also a leading astronomer of his day.
In his book On the Reckoning of Time (De temporum ratione), among other things he calculated the creation of the world to be in 3952 BC, showed how to calculate the date of Easter, and explicitly taught that the earth was round. From this, he showed why the length of days and nights changed with the seasons, and how tides were dragged by the moon. Bede was the first with this insight, while Galileo explained the tides wrongly centuries later.
Here is what Bede said about the shape of the earth—round “like a ball” not “like a shield”:
“We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth’s circumference will represent the figure of a perfect globe. … For truly it is an orb placed in the centre of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its centre with perfect roundness on all sides.”
More in The flat earth myth. (http://creation.com/flat-earth-myth)
And more in a similar vein:
Creation Ministries, The flat-earth myth and creationism (http://creation.com/the-flat-earth-myth-and-creationism)
A flat earth, and other nonsense, Dealing with ideas that would not exist were it not for the Internet (http://creation.com/refuting-flat-earth)
Creation Ministries, Flat earth leader is an evolutionist! (http://creation.com/flat-earth-leader-is-an-evolutionist)
So please stop this silly connection between the shape of the earth and evolution - there is none.
So please explain on what basis you claim "How stupid are the scientist that believe in the Heliocentric Model?"
You don't seem to have justified your claim in the slightest.
Besides, the Heliocentric Globe model works, and none of the numerous flat earth models explain what we see!
Apparently he seems to think that you cannot be a Christian and not be a flat earther
-
You've made mistakes, haven't you? Everyone has. It's not stupidity, it's humanity. The problem is and will always be the people who refuse to admit the possibility that they are wrong.
How true!
Some first of all, flat earthers claim as an "obvious truth" that "the earth is flat",
then have to dream up all sorts of fantastic explanations for what we see.
Instead of, as actually happened, gradually building a model for the shape and movement of the earth based on observations.
The early Sumerians, Chinese and Babylons all believed is a (locally) flat earth and a sun and moon that actually did rise and set as we see.
As people travelled further, they realised the the idea of a locally flat earth no longer fitted what the saw,
and, as they say in the classice, the rest is history.
Till the "modern flat earthers" came along with flat earth models galore, none of which "work".
-
So bottom line, can the scientific community be trusted that they don’t believe in lies?
Well, speaking as a Scientific Gentleman...
The scientific community believed that electromagnetic radiation can be used to transmit sound and pictures, which is obviously a lie, because televisions and radios don't work. The scientific community believed that x-rays showed what your bones looked like, which is obviously a lie because doctors are never correct when diagnosing a broken bone. The scientific community believes that computers work, which is obviously a lie because I'm sat here writing this on parchment with a f***ing feather quill.
So no, don't believe them darned scientists, because science is ALWAYS wrong. ::)
-
The scientist today are really stupid, if you look at their track record. For decades they believed and did research work and Ph’d on the Piltdown Man?
If this group of people were stupid enough to believe that lie, when why would you expect them the smart enough to distinguish another lie?
Well, the vast majority did not have access to any of the evidence for Piltdown man.
Piltdown man was only one piece of evidence for evolution. It was not needed for the support of evolution to be true.
Meanwhile there is loads of easily accessible evidence for Earth being round.
The issue is the FEers completely reject all the evidence, including some they can easily get themselves, like seeing a sunset.
-
So paleontologists did all of the astronomy and particle physics of the day? Good to know
I said that they were the elite of the scientist and got major funding for ther excavations. It is expensive to take an orangutan’s skull and file down the teeth…
You've made mistakes, haven't you? Everyone has. It's not stupidity, it's humanity. The problem is and will always be the people who refuse to admit the possibility that they are wrong.
Mistake, this was fraud…
So you now admit that it was investigated.
And it took decades to be concluded…. And why did the scientist did not listen to those scientist that brought objections… Is it not that the person that presents something having to provide that it is correct, instead of a person having to disprove something… I can say that you are a perfect clone of a human beings, you now have the requirement that you have to disprove me or else you are a clone.
Why did take until the '50s?
Don’t ask me, ask the scientific community…
The validity of the specimen has always been questioned.
So if it was questioned, then why did they accept it in the first place.
And this citation that I gave is from wiki and we all know that wiki information can be changed to fit into any narrative we like.
Can you get a Phd with wiki citations….
The Globe was the accepted shape of the earth from around 300 BC
And bleeding was a common practice in George Washington’s time, but if they would have read the bible they would of know that life is in the blood.
So many Flat Earthers claim that their belief in the flat stationary earth is based on Scripture.
Scripture and Science. The bible in Job talks about the fountains below the sea where life lives.
All the scientists believe that the deep waters were barren till they saw it with their own eyes, I believe it was in 1978.
What year was the bible written?
Also mathematics tell us, that there is no earth curvature.
(http://)
So please explain on what basis you claim "How stupid are the scientist that believe in the Heliocentric Model?"
I have proven that the earth is stationary, because you can’t draw a FBD of an airplane landing and show the forces that sync the plane to the earths movement, nor have provided any citation in which you show the convention heat transfer model of a spinning sphere that radiates to its environment with the thermal and velocity boundary layers.
You have no proof that the earth’s atmosphere moves with the supposedly spinning earth and yet you still believe in it.
This is stupidity and it fall in line with the Piltdown Man.
I call it the Piltdown Man Syndrome, where if something falls inline with our narrative, we accept it without any questions.
Provide the citations…
-
If I jump up in the air do I land in the same place?
-
I have proven that the earth is stationary
No you haven't, you've just built yourself a strawman to play with.
-
If I jump up in the air do I land in the same place?
This depend if you believe in the Heliocentric hypothesis?
In reality Yes, but in the Heliocentric hypothesis No
-
I have proven that the earth is stationary
No you haven't, you've just built yourself a strawman to play with.
Please provide citation of the Convention Heat Transfer Model of a spinning sphere when it radiates to the environment, just like earth does, where it shows the thermal and velocity boundary layers.
-
If I jump up in the air do I land in the same place?
This depend if you believe in the Heliocentric hypothesis?
In reality Yes, but in the Heliocentric hypothesis No
If you jump on an airplane going at a constant speed of 600mph, do you end up at the end of the plane?
-
If I jump up in the air do I land in the same place?
This depend if you believe in the Heliocentric hypothesis?
In reality Yes, but in the Heliocentric hypothesis No
If you jump on an airplane going at a constant speed of 600mph, do you end up at the end of the plane?
Please provide citation of the Convention Heat Transfer Model of a spinning sphere when it radiates to the environment, just like earth does, where it shows the thermal and velocity boundary layers.
-
I have proven that the earth is stationary
No you haven't, you've just built yourself a strawman to play with.
Please provide citation of the Convention Heat Transfer Model of a spinning sphere when it radiates to the environment, just like earth does, where it shows the thermal and velocity boundary layers.
There's an atmosphere where the heat is retained.
https://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm
-
If I jump up in the air do I land in the same place?
This depend if you believe in the Heliocentric hypothesis?
In reality Yes, but in the Heliocentric hypothesis No
If you jump on an airplane going at a constant speed of 600mph, do you end up at the end of the plane?
Please provide citation of the Convention Heat Transfer Model of a spinning sphere when it radiates to the environment, just like earth does, where it shows the thermal and velocity boundary layers.
And you wrote that right after I replied to you. Quit dodging the question.
-
Please provide citation of the Convention Heat Transfer Model of a spinning sphere when it radiates to the environment, just like earth does, where it shows the thermal and velocity boundary layers.
What is a "Convention Heat Transfer Model"?
Just wondering!
-
Please provide citation of the Convention Heat Transfer Model of a spinning sphere when it radiates to the environment, just like earth does, where it shows the thermal and velocity boundary layers.
What is a "Convention Heat Transfer Model"?
Just wondering!
He's probably asking how heat is retained on Earth or some irrelevant dumb sh*t like that
-
Please provide citation of the Convention Heat Transfer Model of a spinning sphere when it radiates to the environment, just like earth does, where it shows the thermal and velocity boundary layers.
What is a "Convention Heat Transfer Model"?
Just wondering!
If you don't know what Convection Heat Transfer is, then you are not engineer. But let me educate you.
Heat transfer can be accomplished by 3 ways, Conduction (two bodies touching), Convection (a body with an environment) and radiation.
A model is a representation of the event with equations and diagrams.
So when I ask for a Convention Heat Transfer Model I am asking for documentation of the calculations that were created that proves that the velocity boundary layers of the spinning sphere that loses heat, like the Earth supposedly does, will be the same in height as the earth's atmosphere.
If such a model does not excites, then the velocity boundary layer of the Earth spinning will not be able to keep the atmosphere synchronized to the Earth, which in turn will disprove your hypothesis.
You are making claims that something is true and I am challenging your claims.
Put up or shut up!!!
-
I have proven that the earth is stationary
No you haven't, you've just built yourself a strawman to play with.
This is not a Convection Heat Transfer Model of the Earth with Velocity Boundary layers.
You are trying to bullshit your way out of the corner that you are in!!!
Please provide citation of the Convention Heat Transfer Model of a spinning sphere when it radiates to the environment, just like earth does, where it shows the thermal and velocity boundary layers.
There's an atmosphere where the heat is retained.
https://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm
First of all, this is not a Convention Heat Transfer Model.
Second of all, it doe not have any calculations whatsoever
You are falling into the Piltdown Man Complex
-
And on this note, Good night!!!
OK
How about a FBD for each of the sun and moon orbiting above the flat earth?
Answer that,
-
And on this note, Good night!!!
OK
How about a FBD for each of the sun and moon orbiting above the flat earth?
Answer that,
Are you stupid or have never taken physics?
You want me to create one free body diagram that has 3 object in it. What college did you attend?
By definition a Free Body Diagram has ONLY 1 object and all forces that act upon that object.
-
Please provide citation of the Convention Heat Transfer Model of a spinning sphere when it radiates to the environment, just like earth does, where it shows the thermal and velocity boundary layers.
What is a "Convention Heat Transfer Model"?
Just wondering!
If you don't know what Convection Heat Transfer is, then you are not engineer. But let me educate you.
Dipstick!
You did not ask for Convection Heat Transfer.
You asked for ;D ;D "Convention Heat Transfer". ;D ;D
-
So when I ask for a Convention Heat Transfer Model I am asking for documentation of the calculations that were created that proves that the velocity boundary layers of the spinning sphere that loses heat, like the Earth supposedly does, will be the same in height as the earth's atmosphere.
"Velocity Boundary layer".
Unless you're referring to aerodynamics (which you're not), you have made this up on your own. Earth's atmosphere rotates along with Earth's surface because of friction. The Earth has enough time for the forces of friction to cause the atmosphere to rotate with the Earth. This has nothing to do with "losing heat". Whether or not the Earth was spinning is directly irrelevant.
How the Earth maintains heat is a different story. That's atmospheric science.
https://icp.giss.nasa.gov/education/radforce/energybudget.GIF
-
Spelling may not be my expertise, but at least I know the basic governing principles of a Free Body Diagram
-
And on this note, Good night!!!
OK
How about a FBD for each of the sun and moon orbiting above the flat earth?
Answer that,
Are you stupid or have never taken physics?
You want me to create one free body diagram that has 3 object in it. What college did you attend?
By definition a Free Body Diagram has ONLY 1 object and all forces that act upon that object.
Create a Free Body Diagram that illustrates the orbital mechanics and the forces at play of the Sun relative to the Flat Earth.
-
Spelling may not be my expertise, but at least I know the basic governing principles of a Free Body Diagram
I'm calling it. This guy's a troll.
-
And on this note, Good night!!!
OK
How about a FBD for each of the sun and moon orbiting above the flat earth?
Answer that,
Are you stupid or have never taken physics?
You want me to create one free body diagram that has 3 object in it. What college did you attend?
By definition a Free Body Diagram has ONLY 1 object and all forces that act upon that object.
Ooh, we are getting :D touchy aren't we! :D
Do I have to translate simple English for you now, guess you skipped Reading Comprehension 101!
No I am not stupid, I asked you for "a FBD for each of the sun and moon orbiting above the flat earth".
Now, "a FBD for each" means one FBD for each, that is a number of separate Free Body Diagrams.
I was not expecting the earth as well, because that depends too much on which one of the numerous flat earth models you subscribe to.
So present me with a FBD for the sun circling above the flat earth.
This must show the forces on the sun allowing it to maintain its (unknown) height and causing it to travel in its weird spiralling motion.
Then do the same for the moon.
Just remember that according the this Flat Earth Society the sun and moon are each about 50 km in diameter and about 5000 km high.
Now, how about it!
PS We know how those things work on the Heliocentric Globe! You see we have a model that works, you don't.
-
I thought the question was how stupid were scientists?
However,
How can you simultaneously demand"scientific proof" while deriding the work of all science...
Oh, I know, in the same way you ask why a picture from a satellite does not show a mountain / dome.....and at the same time believe that said satellite could not exist in the first place.
The wikipedia description of a fee body diagram actually describes the forces acting on a gymnast, and one is the earths rotation.
Go and read it properly and you might learn something.
Unlike yourself I did listen and learn in basic and advanced physics, and all evidence , proof and physical observation confirmed a round (ish), rotating heliocentric planet.
-
And on this note, Good night!!!
OK
How about a FBD for each of the sun and moon orbiting above the flat earth?
Answer that,
Are you stupid or have never taken physics?
You want me to create one free body diagram that has 3 object in it. What college did you attend?
By definition a Free Body Diagram has ONLY 1 object and all forces that act upon that object.
Create a Free Body Diagram that illustrates the orbital mechanics and the forces at play of the Sun relative to the Flat Earth.
How can you make a free body diagram of a light source???
Does light have mass?
If so, what is the maximum distance that a single photon can travel???
Once you answer these questions, then I will draw your FBD.
What about my FBD with the airplane landing...
-
Just remember that according the this Flat Earth Society the sun and moon are each about 50 km in diameter and about 5000 km high.
Have I ever stated this in a post?
Just because some people think this is true, does not mean that I believe it., Actually it could be very easily calculated using the standard that ophthalmology have for 20/ 20 vision.
-
I thought the question was how stupid were scientists?
However,
How can you simultaneously demand"scientific proof" while deriding the work of all science...
Oh, I know, in the same way you ask why a picture from a satellite does not show a mountain / dome.....and at the same time believe that said satellite could not exist in the first place.
The wikipedia description of a fee body diagram actually describes the forces acting on a gymnast, and one is the earths rotation.
Go and read it properly and you might learn something.
Unlike yourself I did listen and learn in basic and advanced physics, and all evidence , proof and physical observation confirmed a round (ish), rotating heliocentric planet.
Heat transfer will be the end of you!
What is the temperature of the environment that the Satellites operate in?
Before you answer this think very carefully of your answer.
Place your answer in the below thread.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71393.0
-
Also mathematics tell us, that there is no earth curvature.
Math alone cannot tell you anything.
But math, combined with observation can.
And that tells us that Earth is round.
(http://)
And you even have parts of the oil rigs hidden in this video. So much for disproving curvature.
You also clearly have distortion.
Unless you want to say the crane really looks like that?
I have proven that the earth is stationary, because you can’t draw a FBD of an airplane landing and show the forces that sync the plane to the earths movement, nor have provided any citation in which you show the convention heat transfer model of a spinning sphere that radiates to its environment with the thermal and velocity boundary layers.
No. You have proven you are a pathetic dishonest troll with no interest in the truth or rational debate.
You have been provided with a FBD, and it has been explained to you that Earth RADIATES heat, rather than transfer it to other environments by convection.
You have been completely unable to prove any of your baseless claims.
You have no proof that the earth’s atmosphere moves with the supposedly spinning earth and yet you still believe in it.
Because if it didn't, friction would force it to.
This is stupidity and it fall in line with the Piltdown Man.
No, it is "stupidity" in line with thinking it is possible for the wind to blow things around.
-
Also mathematics tell us, that there is no earth curvature.
Math alone cannot tell you anything.
But math, combined with observation can.
And that tells us that Earth is round.
(http://)
And you even have parts of the oil rigs hidden in this video. So much for disproving curvature.
You also clearly have distortion.
Unless you want to say the crane really looks like that?
I have proven that the earth is stationary, because you can’t draw a FBD of an airplane landing and show the forces that sync the plane to the earths movement, nor have provided any citation in which you show the convention heat transfer model of a spinning sphere that radiates to its environment with the thermal and velocity boundary layers.
No. You have proven you are a pathetic dishonest troll with no interest in the truth or rational debate.
You have been provided with a FBD, and it has been explained to you that Earth RADIATES heat, rather than transfer it to other environments by convection.
You have been completely unable to prove any of your baseless claims.
You have no proof that the earth’s atmosphere moves with the supposedly spinning earth and yet you still believe in it.
Because if it didn't, friction would force it to.
This is stupidity and it fall in line with the Piltdown Man.
No, it is "stupidity" in line with thinking it is possible for the wind to blow things around.
I have a very small portion not visible but I have an extremely large portion visible that should have not been visible if the earth was curved.
It's like I own you 1 dollar and you own me 1000 dollars, Who is better off...
-
Just remember that according the this Flat Earth Society the sun and moon are each about 50 km in diameter and about 5000 km high.
Have I ever stated this in a post?
Just because some people think this is true, does not mean that I believe it., Actually it could be very easily calculated using the standard that ophthalmology have for 20/ 20 vision.
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays up above the earth.
-
InFlatEarth, can you please stop providing so much facepalm material? A FBD is not all there is to science.
-
Just remember that according the this Flat Earth Society the sun and moon are each about 50 km in diameter and about 5000 km high.
Have I ever stated this in a post?
Just because some people think this is true, does not mean that I believe it., Actually it could be very easily calculated using the standard that ophthalmology have for 20/ 20 vision.
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays up above the earth.
He could even include a FBD of the Sun, I'd def like to see that. :D
-
Just remember that according the this Flat Earth Society the sun and moon are each about 50 km in diameter and about 5000 km high.
Have I ever stated this in a post?
Just because some people think this is true, does not mean that I believe it., Actually it could be very easily calculated using the standard that ophthalmology have for 20/ 20 vision.
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays up above the earth.
If you were not paying attention, in an other thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.
You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...
You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...
God is great!!!
-
Just remember that according the this Flat Earth Society the sun and moon are each about 50 km in diameter and about 5000 km high.
Have I ever stated this in a post?
Just because some people think this is true, does not mean that I believe it., Actually it could be very easily calculated using the standard that ophthalmology have for 20/ 20 vision.
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays up above the earth.
If you were not paying attention, in an other thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.
You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...
You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...
God is great!!!
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays above the earth. You claimed it was easy.
-
Just remember that according the this Flat Earth Society the sun and moon are each about 50 km in diameter and about 5000 km high.
Have I ever stated this in a post?
Just because some people think this is true, does not mean that I believe it., Actually it could be very easily calculated using the standard that ophthalmology have for 20/ 20 vision.
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays up above the earth.
If you were not paying attention, in an other thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.
You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...
You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...
God is great!!!
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays above the earth. You claimed it was easy.
This is all useless since in another thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.
You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...
You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...
God is great!!!
-
Just remember that according the this Flat Earth Society the sun and moon are each about 50 km in diameter and about 5000 km high.
Have I ever stated this in a post?
Just because some people think this is true, does not mean that I believe it., Actually it could be very easily calculated using the standard that ophthalmology have for 20/ 20 vision.
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays up above the earth.
If you were not paying attention, in an other thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.
You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...
You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...
God is great!!!
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays above the earth. You claimed it was easy.
This is all useless since in another thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.
You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...
You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...
God is great!!!
This is an irrelevant argument. It's also flawed because pilots don't have to keep dipping their airplanes to maintain their altitude.
-
Just remember that according the this Flat Earth Society the sun and moon are each about 50 km in diameter and about 5000 km high.
Have I ever stated this in a post?
Just because some people think this is true, does not mean that I believe it., Actually it could be very easily calculated using the standard that ophthalmology have for 20/ 20 vision.
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays up above the earth.
If you were not paying attention, in an other thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.
You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...
You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...
God is great!!!
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays above the earth. You claimed it was easy.
This is all useless since in another thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.
You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...
You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...
God is great!!!
This is an irrelevant argument. It's also flawed because pilots don't have to keep dipping their airplanes to maintain their altitude.
Irrelevant that we have testimony that the earth has no curvature???
It prove the point that you have the Piltdown Man Syndrome , to believe every lie that fits into your narrative...
-
Just remember that according the this Flat Earth Society the sun and moon are each about 50 km in diameter and about 5000 km high.
Have I ever stated this in a post?
Just because some people think this is true, does not mean that I believe it., Actually it could be very easily calculated using the standard that ophthalmology have for 20/ 20 vision.
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays up above the earth.
If you were not paying attention, in an other thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.
You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...
You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...
God is great!!!
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays above the earth. You claimed it was easy.
This is all useless since in another thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.
You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...
You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...
God is great!!!
So you can't do what you said was easy? No I don't believe it! Go ahead and calculate the size and distance of the sun. Or admit you can't. Either is fine but no more dodging, it's beneath you.
-
Just remember that according the this Flat Earth Society the sun and moon are each about 50 km in diameter and about 5000 km high.
Have I ever stated this in a post?
Just because some people think this is true, does not mean that I believe it., Actually it could be very easily calculated using the standard that ophthalmology have for 20/ 20 vision.
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays up above the earth.
If you were not paying attention, in an other thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.
You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...
You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...
God is great!!!
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays above the earth. You claimed it was easy.
This is all useless since in another thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.
You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...
You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...
God is great!!!
So you can't do what you said was easy? No I don't believe it! Go ahead and calculate the size and distance of the sun. Or admit you can't. Either is fine but no more dodging, it's beneath you.
Why should I waist my time to do something that it has been disproved.
It's like me asking you to make gold out of lead!!!
-
Going back to your initial assertion, for the entirety of its existence, Piltdown Man was viewed with quite a bit of skepticism. In all areas of research, some paths of investigation are dead ends. Eventually, lines that prove useful, survive, while others die out. That, incidentally, is how evolution works.
-
Just remember that according the this Flat Earth Society the sun and moon are each about 50 km in diameter and about 5000 km high.
Have I ever stated this in a post?
Just because some people think this is true, does not mean that I believe it., Actually it could be very easily calculated using the standard that ophthalmology have for 20/ 20 vision.
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays up above the earth.
If you were not paying attention, in an other thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.
You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...
You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...
God is great!!!
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays above the earth. You claimed it was easy.
This is all useless since in another thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.
You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...
You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...
God is great!!!
So you can't do what you said was easy? No I don't believe it! Go ahead and calculate the size and distance of the sun. Or admit you can't. Either is fine but no more dodging, it's beneath you.
Why should I waist my time to do something that it has been disproved.
It's like me asking you to make gold out of lead!!!
If the earth is flat, as you claim, how do explain the path of the sun and the lack of an accurate map, and where do we go from here. Redraw maps?
-
Just remember that according the this Flat Earth Society the sun and moon are each about 50 km in diameter and about 5000 km high.
Have I ever stated this in a post?
Just because some people think this is true, does not mean that I believe it., Actually it could be very easily calculated using the standard that ophthalmology have for 20/ 20 vision.
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays up above the earth.
If you were not paying attention, in an other thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.
You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...
You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...
God is great!!!
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays above the earth. You claimed it was easy.
This is all useless since in another thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.
You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...
You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...
God is great!!!
So you can't do what you said was easy? No I don't believe it! Go ahead and calculate the size and distance of the sun. Or admit you can't. Either is fine but no more dodging, it's beneath you.
Why should I waist my time to do something that it has been disproved.
It's like me asking you to make gold out of lead!!!
If the earth is flat, as you claim, how do explain the path of the sun and the lack of an accurate map, and where do we go from here. Redraw maps?
No, the real question that you should be asking, is where did all the $$$$$ got to that NASA received!!!
-
Just remember that according the this Flat Earth Society the sun and moon are each about 50 km in diameter and about 5000 km high.
Have I ever stated this in a post?
Just because some people think this is true, does not mean that I believe it., Actually it could be very easily calculated using the standard that ophthalmology have for 20/ 20 vision.
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays up above the earth.
If you were not paying attention, in an other thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.
You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...
You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...
God is great!!!
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays above the earth. You claimed it was easy.
This is all useless since in another thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.
You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...
You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...
God is great!!!
So you can't do what you said was easy? No I don't believe it! Go ahead and calculate the size and distance of the sun. Or admit you can't. Either is fine but no more dodging, it's beneath you.
Why should I waist my time to do something that it has been disproved.
It's like me asking you to make gold out of lead!!!
If the earth is flat, as you claim, how do explain the path of the sun and the lack of an accurate map, and where do we go from here. Redraw maps?
No, the real question that you should be asking, is where did all the $$$$$ got to that NASA received!!!
Please answer my question.
-
Just remember that according the this Flat Earth Society the sun and moon are each about 50 km in diameter and about 5000 km high.
Have I ever stated this in a post?
Just because some people think this is true, does not mean that I believe it., Actually it could be very easily calculated using the standard that ophthalmology have for 20/ 20 vision.
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays up above the earth.
If you were not paying attention, in an other thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.
You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...
You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...
God is great!!!
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays above the earth. You claimed it was easy.
This is all useless since in another thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.
You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...
You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...
God is great!!!
So you can't do what you said was easy? No I don't believe it! Go ahead and calculate the size and distance of the sun. Or admit you can't. Either is fine but no more dodging, it's beneath you.
Why should I waist my time to do something that it has been disproved.
It's like me asking you to make gold out of lead!!!
That made no sense at all. You claimed it was easy to calculate the size and distance to the sun. I think you have no idea what you are talking about and you demonstrate it more with every reply.
Make gold out of lead? Wtf? When did I claim I could do that?
Something that has been disproved? If by that you mean your crazy flat earth nonsense then sure, I see your point.
Otherwise you are simply admitting that you lied and all this stuff you are spouting is bullshit.
You claimed it was easy to do, so do it.
-
Something that has been disproved?
Your religion crumbled today, on a Sunday when the airplane pilot confirmed that he does not dip his airplane when he flys from the USA to Japan.
No Curvature at all.
-
You claimed it was easy to do, so do it.
He should put up or shut up, as easy as that.
Just go forth, IFE, we're waiting.
-
You claimed it was easy to do, so do it.
He should put up or shut up, as easy as that.
Just go forth, IFE, we're waiting.
Your religion has been debunked. It over, finito, adeols amigo
-
Just remember that according the this Flat Earth Society the sun and moon are each about 50 km in diameter and about 5000 km high.
Have I ever stated this in a post?
Just because some people think this is true, does not mean that I believe it., Actually it could be very easily calculated using the standard that ophthalmology have for 20/ 20 vision.
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays up above the earth.
If you were not paying attention, in an other thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.
You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...
You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...
God is great!!!
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays above the earth. You claimed it was easy.
This is all useless since in another thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.
You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...
You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...
God is great!!!
This is an irrelevant argument. It's also flawed because pilots don't have to keep dipping their airplanes to maintain their altitude.
Irrelevant that we have testimony that the earth has no curvature???
It prove the point that you have the Piltdown Man Syndrome , to believe every lie that fits into your narrative...
You got your ass COMPLETELY kicked, and claim victory?
You can't even be honest with YOURSELF!
-
Something that has been disproved?
Your religion crumbled today, on a Sunday when the airplane pilot confirmed that he does not dip his airplane when he flys from the USA to Japan.
No Curvature at all.
I will take your dodge as an admission that you lied.
I suspected as much.
But I'll give you another chance.
Do what you claimed you could.
-
Going back to your initial assertion, for the entirety of its existence, Piltdown Man was viewed with quite a bit of skepticism. In all areas of research, some paths of investigation are dead ends. Eventually, lines that prove useful, survive, while others die out. That, incidentally, is how evolution works.
link to youtube video presumed to be a (http://)
Paraphrasing InFlatEarth (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71384.msg1932649#msg1932649): "If you give them videos, they will believe it, without questions, as long as it fits into their narrative. They will also defend it to the max."
This is certainly true for the anti-science crowd; strident voutube videos based on bad data, poor logic, fuzzy thinking, and misinformation seem to be the main vector for their message.
Can you provide a transcript of that video or a synopsis of its argument? If you can't clearly describe what it's saying, you must not understand it. Do you have anything other than (a) video(s) to bolster whatever argument you're trying to make, or are you just trying to hammer home the point about believing videos you want to believe?
-
Something that has been disproved?
Your religion crumbled today, on a Sunday when the airplane pilot confirmed that he does not dip his airplane when he flys from the USA to Japan.
No Curvature at all.
Or you have no fucking clue how planes calculate and maintain their altitude. Let's see, you versus experienced pilot....tricky...
-
You claimed it was easy to do, so do it.
He should put up or shut up, as easy as that.
Just go forth, IFE, we're waiting.
Your religion has been debunked. It over, finito, adeols amigo
Still dodging, I see.
Just a quick reminder in case you forgot: The topic at hand is how you would calculate the height and the diameter of the Sun on a flat Earth since you claimed the current FET got it all wrong and it would be easy for you to calculate it right.
So just go forth, we're waiting.
Bonus points for drawing the FBD on your precious flat Earth Sun when you finished the calculation. ;D
-
Something that has been disproved?
Your religion crumbled today, on a Sunday when the airplane pilot confirmed that he does not dip his airplane when he flys from the USA to Japan.
No Curvature at all.
No, that was you completely failing to understand his description of not needing to manually "dip" the plane as long as you tell it to maintain a constant altitude, and that lift always operates perpendicular to the tangent of the average surface. Probably best not to crow about having completely misunderstood aerodynamics.
-
Going back to your initial assertion, for the entirety of its existence, Piltdown Man was viewed with quite a bit of skepticism. In all areas of research, some paths of investigation are dead ends. Eventually, lines that prove useful, survive, while others die out. That, incidentally, is how evolution works.
link to youtube video presumed to be a (http://)
Paraphrasing InFlatEarth (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71384.msg1932649#msg1932649): "If you give them videos, they will believe it, without questions, as long as it fits into their narrative. They will also defend it to the max."
This is certainly true for the anti-science crowd; strident voutube videos based on bad data, poor logic, fuzzy thinking, and misinformation seem to be the main vector for their message.
Can you provide a transcript of that video or a synopsis of its argument? If you can't clearly describe what it's saying, you must not understand it. Do you have anything other than (a) video(s) to bolster whatever argument you're trying to make, or are you just trying to hammer home the point about believing videos you want to believe?
--A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?” Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means.
--Abiogenesis is only one area of research which illustrates that the naturalistic origin of life hypothesis has become less and less probable as molecular biology has progressed, and is now at the point that its plausibility appears outside the realm of probability. Numerous origin-of-life researchers, have lamented the fact that molecular biology during the past half-a-century has not been very kind to any naturalistic origin-of-life theory. Perhaps this explains why researchers now are speculating that other events such as panspermia or an undiscovered “life law” are more probable than all existing terrestrial abiogenesis theories, and can better deal with the many seemingly insurmountable problems of abiogenesis.
READ MORE : https://www.trueorigin.org/abio.php
At the most recent debate in 2004, at New York University, he declared that he ‘now accepted the existence of a God’ (p. 74). In that debate, he said that he believed that the origin of life points to a creative Intelligence,
‘almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence’ (p. 75).
DNA
The complexity of the genetic code led Flew to believe that the origin of life required a ‘creative intelligence’.
Flew was particularly impressed with a physicist’s refutation of the idea that monkeys at typewriters would eventually produce a Shakespearean sonnet. The likelihood of getting one Shakespearean sonnet by chance is one in 10^690; to put this number in perspective, there are only 10^80 particles in the universe. Flew concludes:
‘If the theorem won’t work for a single sonnet, then of course it’s simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance’ (p. 78).
Infinite monkey theorem : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
Many atheists say that religion is inherently unreasonable, and that if someone comes to faith in any deity, it is only because of a religious experience that is best unverifiable and at worst a form of delusion. However, Flew’s deistic argument is useful in that he, using arguments completely on the natural level, makes a powerful argument for God’s existence.
‘I must stress that my discovery of the Divine has proceeded on a purely natural level, without any reference to supernatural phenomena. It has been an exercise in what has traditionally been called natural theology. It has had no connection with any of the revealed religions. Nor do I claim to have had any personal experience of God or any experience that may be called supernatural or miraculous. In short, my discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith’ (p. 93).
Readers looking for an apologetic for Christianity will be disappointed, but the book is a good read. The book is powerful evidence that one can come to a belief in theism purely from the evidence. It is also a lesson that design alone is not enough for saving faith; that needs special revelation, which is likewise backed up by credible historical evidence as Habermas and Wright showed.
READ MORE : http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew
-
Just remember that according the this Flat Earth Society the sun and moon are each about 50 km in diameter and about 5000 km high.
Have I ever stated this in a post?
Just because some people think this is true, does not mean that I believe it., Actually it could be very easily calculated using the standard that ophthalmology have for 20/ 20 vision.
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays up above the earth.
If you were not paying attention, in an other thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.
You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...
You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...
God is great!!!
Great, go ahead. Calculate the size and distance of the sun and explain how it stays above the earth. You claimed it was easy.
This is all useless since in another thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.
You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...
You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...
God is great!!!
This is an irrelevant argument. It's also flawed because pilots don't have to keep dipping their airplanes to maintain their altitude.
Irrelevant that we have testimony that the earth has no curvature???
It prove the point that you have the Piltdown Man Syndrome , to believe every lie that fits into your narrative...
You got your ass COMPLETELY kicked, and claim victory?
You can't even be honest with YOURSELF!
The pilot has not come back yet, I guess the gyroscope is a valid question...
-
You claimed it was easy to do, so do it.
He should put up or shut up, as easy as that.
Just go forth, IFE, we're waiting.
Your religion has been debunked. It over, finito, adeols amigo
Still dodging, I see.
Just a quick reminder in case you forgot: The topic at hand is how you would calculate the height and the diameter of the Sun on a flat Earth since you claimed the current FET got it all wrong and it would be easy for you to calculate it right.
So just go forth, we're waiting.
Bonus points for drawing the FBD on your precious flat Earth Sun when you finished the calculation. ;D
Wrong, the topic at hand is "How stupid are the scientist that believe in the Heliocentric Model?"
-
Something that has been disproved?
Your religion crumbled today, on a Sunday when the airplane pilot confirmed that he does not dip his airplane when he flys from the USA to Japan.
No Curvature at all.
No, that was you completely failing to understand his description of not needing to manually "dip" the plane as long as you tell it to maintain a constant altitude, and that lift always operates perpendicular to the tangent of the average surface. Probably best not to crow about having completely misunderstood aerodynamics.
Gyroscopes don't lie, I wish I could say the same about the Heliocentric Priests...
-
Something that has been disproved?
Your religion crumbled today, on a Sunday when the airplane pilot confirmed that he does not dip his airplane when he flys from the USA to Japan.
No Curvature at all.
No, that was you completely failing to understand his description of not needing to manually "dip" the plane as long as you tell it to maintain a constant altitude, and that lift always operates perpendicular to the tangent of the average surface. Probably best not to crow about having completely misunderstood aerodynamics.
Gyroscopes don't lie, I wish I could say the same about the Heliocentric Priests...
You made the claim, were you lying? Why won't you support your own claim?
-
Going back to your initial assertion, for the entirety of its existence, Piltdown Man was viewed with quite a bit of skepticism. In all areas of research, some paths of investigation are dead ends. Eventually, lines that prove useful, survive, while others die out. That, incidentally, is how evolution works.
<link to youtube video presumed to be about "the impossibility of evolution">
Paraphrasing InFlatEarth (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71384.msg1932649#msg1932649): "If you give them videos, they will believe it, without questions, as long as it fits into their narrative. They will also defend it to the max."
This is certainly true for the anti-science crowd; strident voutube videos based on bad data, poor logic, fuzzy thinking, and misinformation seem to be the main vector for their message.
Can you provide a transcript of that video or a synopsis of its argument? If you can't clearly describe what it's saying, you must not understand it. Do you have anything other than (a) video(s) to bolster whatever argument you're trying to make, or are you just trying to hammer home the point about believing videos you want to believe?
--A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?” Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means.
--Abiogenesis is only one area of research which illustrates that the naturalistic origin of life hypothesis has become less and less probable as molecular biology has progressed, and is now at the point that its plausibility appears outside the realm of probability. Numerous origin-of-life researchers, have lamented the fact that molecular biology during the past half-a-century has not been very kind to any naturalistic origin-of-life theory. Perhaps this explains why researchers now are speculating that other events such as panspermia or an undiscovered “life law” are more probable than all existing terrestrial abiogenesis theories, and can better deal with the many seemingly insurmountable problems of abiogenesis.
READ MORE : https://www.trueorigin.org/abio.php
At the most recent debate in 2004, at New York University, he declared that he ‘now accepted the existence of a God’ (p. 74). In that debate, he said that he believed that the origin of life points to a creative Intelligence,
‘almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence’ (p. 75).
DNA
The complexity of the genetic code led Flew to believe that the origin of life required a ‘creative intelligence’.
Flew was particularly impressed with a physicist’s refutation of the idea that monkeys at typewriters would eventually produce a Shakespearean sonnet. The likelihood of getting one Shakespearean sonnet by chance is one in 10^690; to put this number in perspective, there are only 10^80 particles in the universe. Flew concludes:
‘If the theorem won’t work for a single sonnet, then of course it’s simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance’ (p. 78).
Infinite monkey theorem : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
Many atheists say that religion is inherently unreasonable, and that if someone comes to faith in any deity, it is only because of a religious experience that is best unverifiable and at worst a form of delusion. However, Flew’s deistic argument is useful in that he, using arguments completely on the natural level, makes a powerful argument for God’s existence.
‘I must stress that my discovery of the Divine has proceeded on a purely natural level, without any reference to supernatural phenomena. It has been an exercise in what has traditionally been called natural theology. It has had no connection with any of the revealed religions. Nor do I claim to have had any personal experience of God or any experience that may be called supernatural or miraculous. In short, my discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith’ (p. 93).
Readers looking for an apologetic for Christianity will be disappointed, but the book is a good read. The book is powerful evidence that one can come to a belief in theism purely from the evidence. It is also a lesson that design alone is not enough for saving faith; that needs special revelation, which is likewise backed up by credible historical evidence as Habermas and Wright showed.
READ MORE : http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew
Thanks. That's about origin of life rather than evolution, despite what the teaser says. Those are different topics.
-
Yeah, scientists nowadays really are stupid. I mean, we all know that the sun is flat, so the earth probably is flat too. Why they ignore this fact I don`t know.
-
Yeah, scientists nowadays really are stupid. I mean, we all know that the sun is flat, so the earth probably is flat too. Why they ignore this fact I don`t know.
-
Yeah, scientists nowadays really are stupid. I mean, we all know that the sun is flat, so the earth probably is flat too. Why they ignore this fact I don`t know.
Thanks. I love the Beatles. Plus all those shots of sunrise and set prove the globe! Well done!
-
Yeah, scientists nowadays really are stupid. I mean, we all know that the sun is flat, so the earth probably is flat too. Why they ignore this fact I don`t know.
I don`t know what you want to say with this. That is no proof that the sun is round...
-
You claimed it was easy to do, so do it.
He should put up or shut up, as easy as that.
Just go forth, IFE, we're waiting.
Your religion has been debunked. It over, finito, adeols amigo
Still dodging, I see.
Just a quick reminder in case you forgot: The topic at hand is how you would calculate the height and the diameter of the Sun on a flat Earth since you claimed the current FET got it all wrong and it would be easy for you to calculate it right.
So just go forth, we're waiting.
Bonus points for drawing the FBD on your precious flat Earth Sun when you finished the calculation. ;D
Wrong, the topic at hand is "How stupid are the scientist that believe in the Heliocentric Model?"
Do you really want to go down that road? I could start a thread with your claim for everyone to see, how about that?
Grow some balls. ::)
-
I thought I would show these Heliocentric Priest what good music sounds like, nothing more.
-
You claimed it was easy to do, so do it.
He should put up or shut up, as easy as that.
Just go forth, IFE, we're waiting.
Your religion has been debunked. It over, finito, adeols amigo
Still dodging, I see.
Just a quick reminder in case you forgot: The topic at hand is how you would calculate the height and the diameter of the Sun on a flat Earth since you claimed the current FET got it all wrong and it would be easy for you to calculate it right.
So just go forth, we're waiting.
Bonus points for drawing the FBD on your precious flat Earth Sun when you finished the calculation. ;D
Wrong, the topic at hand is "How stupid are the scientist that believe in the Heliocentric Model?"
Do you really want to go down that road? I could start a thread with your claim for everyone to see, how about that?
Grow some balls. ::)
Please do...
-
I have the new anthem of NASA
-
Something that has been disproved?
Your religion crumbled today, on a Sunday when the airplane pilot confirmed that he does not dip his airplane when he flys from the USA to Japan.
No Curvature at all.
You really are a hypocrtical ignorant clot of the worst kind. You call yourself religious, I imagine you are a christian, then you go about behaving in a most un-christian way. Shame on you.
-
Something that has been disproved?
Your religion crumbled today, on a Sunday when the airplane pilot confirmed that he does not dip his airplane when he flys from the USA to Japan.
No Curvature at all.
You really are a hypocrtical ignorant clot of the worst kind. You call yourself religious, I imagine you are a christian, then you go about behaving in a most un-christian way. Shame on you.
Christianity is to tell the Truth, even when people persecute you.
-
Something that has been disproved?
Your religion crumbled today, on a Sunday when the airplane pilot confirmed that he does not dip his airplane when he flys from the USA to Japan.
No Curvature at all.
You really are a hypocrtical ignorant clot of the worst kind. You call yourself religious, I imagine you are a christian, then you go about behaving in a most un-christian way. Shame on you.
Christianity is to tell the Truth, even when people persecute you.
The truth is the world is round, as you know. Path of the sun proves it.
-
So bottom line, can the scientific community be trusted that they don’t believe in lies?
Not one fucking bit.
They are all fucking liars.
There might two or three actual RE-tards you are arguing with here, InFlatEarth, and that is the reality of it. The rest are sockpuppet accounts and they occupy a lot more boards than you realize.
Use famous phrases like..."defending and promoting truth in the face of...", yet at the very same time allow numerous, in your face instances of lying to go unchallenged.
The two or three of them take turns in a circle jerk, hoping to get a break in typing occasionally so all three can participate in one tremendous jerk, utilizing the inertia of the Earth, hoping for some carry over from the Coriolis Effect, as to maximize satisfaction when achieving climax.
-
The truth is the world is round, as you know. Path of the sun proves it.
Are you smart enough to make an animation of the suns path on a Flat Earth?
If yes, then GOD is powerful enough to make it happen .
-
The truth is the world is round, as you know. Path of the sun proves it.
Are you smart enough to make an animation of the suns path on a Flat Earth?
If yes, then GOD is powerful enough to make it happen .
Actually, nobody has managed to make an animation of the Sun's path on a flat earth that fits what we observe with our eyes.
Just saying.
-
The truth is the world is round, as you know. Path of the sun proves it.
Are you smart enough to make an animation of the suns path on a Flat Earth?
If yes, then GOD is powerful enough to make it happen .
Actually, nobody has managed to make an animation of the Sun's path on a flat earth that fits what we observe with our eyes.
Just saying.
This should be fun to do.
Please post equations of sun's path relative to the north pole on a spherical earth.
If I will do the moon instead, would that be OK, or has that been done?
-
The truth is the world is round, as you know. Path of the sun proves it.
Are you smart enough to make an animation of the suns path on a Flat Earth?
If yes, then GOD is powerful enough to make it happen .
Actually, nobody has managed to make an animation of the Sun's path on a flat earth that fits what we observe with our eyes.
Just saying.
This should be fun to do.
Please post equations of sun's path relative to the north pole on a spherical earth.
If I will do the moon instead, would that be OK, or has that been done?
All here - https://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php
-
I have a very small portion not visible but I have an extremely large portion visible that should have not been visible if the earth was curved.
It's like I own you 1 dollar and you own me 1000 dollars, Who is better off...
No, you have a section which is horribly distorted making it quite difficult to determine exactly how much is hidden, and it completely ignores refraction, complete with questionable observer heights.
It is more like:
You claim to owe no one anything. (i.e. nothing hidden by curvature)
I claim that you owe 1000 dollars give or take a bit.
You then show that you owe 900 dollars.
Who is more correct?
If Earth was flat NONE should be hidden.
Irrelevant that we have testimony that the earth has no curvature???
Except that wasn't your "testimony".
In reality it was that it has slightly less curvature than expected when you don't consider things like refraction and observer height.
As for your gyroscope and nose dipping BS, that has already been answered in other threads.
-
You can't even draw a free body diagram
It's crazy how you think using words such as FBD makes you seem knowledgeable. That is high school stuff. People learn how to do FBDs at the age of 15 or 16 to prepare their A level.
Aerodynamics and celestial mechanics come much later. At this point FBDs are seldom used. In particular, the drawing of a plane with the 4 forces labeled "thrust, drag, lift, weight" is an oversimplification for people who have never studied planes.
You, on the other hand, have never learned any physics and never studied FBDs in high school. It is obvious when one reads you. If you had taken the most basic course and were taught the most basic FBDs, you wouldn't ask questions such as : "do pilots dive the nose of the plane".
You claim you know how to draw FBDs and compute equations, then why don't you do so ? Show us the equation of the Sun around the North Pole, with the force that binds them ! That would be a first in FE history !
-
How can you make a free body diagram of a light source???
The sun and moon are not "just light sources". There must be all of these things!- Some material object to emit the light from the sun,
- Some source of energy to generate the light from the sun. An estimate of the average energy reaching the ground each day is about 12,211 gigawatt-hours.
- Of course I claim the moonlight is reflected sunlight, but you claim that the moon is self luminous. In either case there must be some object there to emit or reflect the light.
- We cane see the sun and moon appearing as objects of similar apparent size. Each has have pattern that we can see shift, though very slightly in the case of the moon.
So I refuse to accept that these are "just light sources"!
Does light have mass?
Irrelevant, but light cannot possibly have any rest mass!
If so, what is the maximum distance that a single photon can travel???
Irrelevant, whether light has mass or not has no relevance to "the maximum distance that a single photon can travel"!
Newton's First Law of Motion (you did that when you took physics in collage) states Newton's First Law
An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion
with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
So with nothing to impede an object with rest mass or a photon,
why would there be a limit the "the maximum distance that a single photon can travel"?
I guess you skipped that class!
Once you answer these questions, then I will draw your FBD.
What about my FBD with the airplane landing...
What's the relevance? But here is one of a plane flying, same thing! (https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/smotion.gif)
And from your favourite source of reliable information - NASA
-
rabinoz He wants to see the FBD of a plane landing, while the runway is being moved from the plane's trajectory by the rotation of the Earth, and the FBD should show which force is keeping the plane in sync with the ground below it.
We all answered this force was the orbital velocity of the atmosphere which is the same as the ground below it.
I also answered that you can't see this force when you draw the FBD in a terrestrial referential, since this referential is rotating along with the ground. So the FBD he's asking would be of a plane in the atmosphere as seen from a referential outside of Earth, not rotating with it.
-
The truth is the world is round, as you know. Path of the sun proves it.
Are you smart enough to make an animation of the suns path on a Flat Earth?
If yes, then GOD is powerful enough to make it happen .
Actually, nobody has managed to make an animation of the Sun's path on a flat earth that fits what we observe with our eyes.
Just saying.
This should be fun to do.
Please post equations of sun's path relative to the north pole on a spherical earth.
If I will do the moon instead, would that be OK, or has that been done?
All here - https://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php
Thank you, but I have decided to use actual sun reading from the an observatory, before the heliocentric hypothesis was developed. I don't believe that you would questioned their reading, will you and if you can show me some data from back then, I would be happy to use it.
Don't expect this to happen overnight, I will need some time, since I'm doing some Moon experiment these days...
-
rabinoz He wants to see the FBD of a plane landing, while the runway is being moved from the plane's trajectory by the rotation of the Earth, and the FBD should show which force is keeping the plane in sync with the ground below it.
We all answered this force was the orbital velocity of the atmosphere which is the same as the ground below it.
I also answered that you can't see this force when you draw the FBD in a terrestrial referential, since this referential is rotating along with the ground. So the FBD he's asking would be of a plane in the atmosphere as seen from a referential outside of Earth, not rotating with it.
You citations what show with calculations that the Earth's atmosphere rotates with the earth please!!!!!!
You know, it's like me saying that I have a golden goose that lays gold coins and hear is a coin that I have to prove it. Are you going to believe me or are you going to ask to see the goose lay a golden coin?
Show me the calculations that back up your stupid claim....
-
He presented the numerical data in the plots. I say that the accuracy displayed there can not be achieved with his equipment.
I would expect the precision of the results to be of order 5-10%, but this is just a rough guess and definitely depends on the used method.
As he wants to determine a 0.25% difference (at most), I would want an accuracy at this order of magnitude.
But please be honest with youself: Do you really think the obtained data with only 0.5% deviation can be obtained with an iphone 7 video camera and a person jumping?
I am actually curious in your honest answer InFlatEarth. If you guys want more, here is the matlab code I used to "analyze" the data:
fake = zeros(1,100);
fake(1:100) = 9.807;
fluc = rand([2 100]);
fluc2 = (fluc-0.5)./1000;
data = fluc2+9.807
trial = 1:1:100;
figure(1)
plot(trial,data(1,:),'b-o')
title('New York State');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
figure(2)
plot(trial,data(2,:),'b-o')
title('Indonesia');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
I apologize to the people who put effort into showing me the flaws in my "methods". I did learn about the existence of a gravimeter from you guys though. InFlatEarth, I appreciate you defending me, but your defenses don't really make any sense. I did graduate from GW but I have not been a PhD student for two years. In truth, I just graduated College and am starting my PhD at CMU this fall. In the words of my favorite cartoon character ever, "I just got bored. Everybody out." ... JimmyTheCrab probably gets that reference ;)
How stupid is OP for not realizing his own level of intelligence?
-
The truth is the world is round, as you know. Path of the sun proves it.
Are you smart enough to make an animation of the suns path on a Flat Earth?
If yes, then GOD is powerful enough to make it happen .
Actually, nobody has managed to make an animation of the Sun's path on a flat earth that fits what we observe with our eyes.
Just saying.
This should be fun to do.
Please post equations of sun's path relative to the north pole on a spherical earth.
If I will do the moon instead, would that be OK, or has that been done?
All here - https://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php
Thank you, but I have decided to use actual sun reading from the an observatory, before the heliocentric hypothesis was developed. I don't believe that you would questioned their reading, will you and if you can show me some data from back then, I would be happy to use it.
Don't expect this to happen overnight, I will need some time, since I'm doing some Moon experiment these days...
I have no idea what you are trying to prove, but whatever it is you should use current data.
-
You citations what show with calculations that the Earth's atmosphere rotates with the earth please!!!!!!
You know, it's like me saying that I have a golden goose that lays gold coins and hear is a coin that I have to prove it. Are you going to believe me or are you going to ask to see the goose lay a golden coin?
Show me the calculations that back up your stupid claim....
1) The earth rotates.
2) We do not experience winds up to 1600 km/hr on the earth's surface.
3) Therefore the atmosphere must rotate with the earth. QED
Or
the the original source of the atmosphere was from the rotating earth, so was originally rotating with the earth.
The is no "friction" outside the earth to slow the atmosphere down and the rotating earth inside to keeps it rotating.
So there is no reason for the atmosphere to be doing other than rotate with the earth.
If you think that there are reasons, now is the time to present them.
Why should I waste time pandering to your delusions?
And, in case you don't realise it, what you claim and what I can prove to your satisfaction has not the slightest effect on the facts.
As to reasons for believing that the earth rotates look at Gyroscopes., Stellar aberration and The Sagnac effect,
In Is the earth a spinning round ball? by Donald E. Simanek. (https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/round-spin.htm)
The there are available gyroscopes relying on the Sagnac Effect that can easily measure the earth's rotation once in roughly 23 hours 56 minutes. This sort of thing: Honeywell Aerospace, GG1320AN Digital Ring Laser Gyroscope (https://aerospace.honeywell.com/en/products/navigation-and-sensors/gg1320an-digital-ring-laser-gyroscope)
(https://aerospace.honeywell.com/~/media/aerospace/images/sensors/ring-laser-gyro_625x460.jpg)
This one has a "drift" that would do very well: Angular Random Walk (ARW) 0.0035 deg/hour (typical).
Angular Random Walk means that in the absence of any movement, after an hour it will typically show 0.0035°.
Since the earth rotates at about 15°/hr, this gyroscope will easily measure the earth's rotation.
Still you will not believe anything that does not fit your belief.
PS If that's not good enough go and read this yourself
Atmosphere and Earth's rotation, by Hans Volland (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01904476?no-access=true)
Or you could read:
Earth Rotation as a Proxy for Interannual Variability in Atmospheric Circulation, 1860-Present - AMS Journals - American Meteorological Society. (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0450(1986)025%3C1870:ERAAPF%3E2.0.CO%3B2)
Which includes:
"atmosphere's angular momentum and in the rotation rate of the solid earth are closely coupled on time scales of up to several years."
-
You citations what show with calculations that the Earth's atmosphere rotates with the earth please!!!!!!
You know, it's like me saying that I have a golden goose that lays gold coins and hear is a coin that I have to prove it. Are you going to believe me or are you going to ask to see the goose lay a golden coin?
Show me the calculations that back up your stupid claim....
1) The earth rotates.
2) We do not experience winds up to 1600 km/hr on the earth's surface.
3) Therefore the atmosphere must rotate with the earth. QED
Or
the the original source of the atmosphere was from the rotating earth, so was originally rotating with the earth.
The is no "friction" outside the earth to slow the atmosphere down and the rotating earth inside to keeps it rotating.
So there is no reason for the atmosphere to be doing other than rotate with the earth.
If you think that there are reasons, now is the time to present them.
Why should I waste time pandering to your delusions?
And, in case you don't realise it, what you claim and what I can prove to your satisfaction has not the slightest effect on the facts.
As to reasons for believing that the earth rotates look at Gyroscopes., Stellar aberration and The Sagnac effect,
In Is the earth a spinning round ball? by Donald E. Simanek. (https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/round-spin.htm)
The there are available gyroscopes relying on the Sagnac Effect that can easily measure the earth's rotation once in roughly 23 hours 56 minutes. This sort of thing: Honeywell Aerospace, GG1320AN Digital Ring Laser Gyroscope (https://aerospace.honeywell.com/en/products/navigation-and-sensors/gg1320an-digital-ring-laser-gyroscope)
(https://aerospace.honeywell.com/~/media/aerospace/images/sensors/ring-laser-gyro_625x460.jpg)
This one has a "drift" that would do very well: Angular Random Walk (ARW) 0.0035 deg/hour (typical).
Angular Random Walk means that in the absence of any movement, after an hour it will typically show 0.0035°.
Since the earth rotates at about 15°/hr, this gyroscope will easily measure the earth's rotation.
Still you will not believe anything that does not fit your belief.
PS If that's not good enough go and read this yourself
Atmosphere and Earth's rotation, by Hans Volland (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01904476?no-access=true)
Or you could read:
Earth Rotation as a Proxy for Interannual Variability in Atmospheric Circulation, 1860-Present - AMS Journals - American Meteorological Society. (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0450(1986)025%3C1870:ERAAPF%3E2.0.CO%3B2)
Which includes:
"atmosphere's angular momentum and in the rotation rate of the solid earth are closely coupled on time scales of up to several years."
Piltdown Man Syndrome
1) The earth rotates.
2) We do not experience winds up to 1600 km/hr on the earth's surface.
3) Therefore the atmosphere must rotate with the earth. QED
How about
1) The earth is stationary
2) If the Earth was rotating we would experience winds up to 1600 km/hr on the earth's surface.
Now, which versions sounds more accurate.
But if you still want to insist that the Earth's atmosphere spins with the Earth, show us your mathematical model to prove this.
Am I asking to much.
In my town, they say put up or shut up.
So put up the mathematical model or say nothing...
-
You citations what show with calculations that the Earth's atmosphere rotates with the earth please!!!!!!
You know, it's like me saying that I have a golden goose that lays gold coins and hear is a coin that I have to prove it. Are you going to believe me or are you going to ask to see the goose lay a golden coin?
Show me the calculations that back up your stupid claim....
1) The earth rotates.
2) We do not experience winds up to 1600 km/hr on the earth's surface.
3) Therefore the atmosphere must rotate with the earth. QED
Or
the the original source of the atmosphere was from the rotating earth, so was originally rotating with the earth.
The is no "friction" outside the earth to slow the atmosphere down and the rotating earth inside to keeps it rotating.
So there is no reason for the atmosphere to be doing other than rotate with the earth.
If you think that there are reasons, now is the time to present them.
Why should I waste time pandering to your delusions?
And, in case you don't realise it, what you claim and what I can prove to your satisfaction has not the slightest effect on the facts.
As to reasons for believing that the earth rotates look at Gyroscopes., Stellar aberration and The Sagnac effect,
In Is the earth a spinning round ball? by Donald E. Simanek. (https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/round-spin.htm)
The there are available gyroscopes relying on the Sagnac Effect that can easily measure the earth's rotation once in roughly 23 hours 56 minutes. This sort of thing: Honeywell Aerospace, GG1320AN Digital Ring Laser Gyroscope (https://aerospace.honeywell.com/en/products/navigation-and-sensors/gg1320an-digital-ring-laser-gyroscope)
(https://aerospace.honeywell.com/~/media/aerospace/images/sensors/ring-laser-gyro_625x460.jpg)
This one has a "drift" that would do very well: Angular Random Walk (ARW) 0.0035 deg/hour (typical).
Angular Random Walk means that in the absence of any movement, after an hour it will typically show 0.0035°.
Since the earth rotates at about 15°/hr, this gyroscope will easily measure the earth's rotation.
Still you will not believe anything that does not fit your belief.
PS If that's not good enough go and read this yourself
Atmosphere and Earth's rotation, by Hans Volland (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01904476?no-access=true)
Or you could read:
Earth Rotation as a Proxy for Interannual Variability in Atmospheric Circulation, 1860-Present - AMS Journals - American Meteorological Society. (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0450(1986)025%3C1870:ERAAPF%3E2.0.CO%3B2)
Which includes:
"atmosphere's angular momentum and in the rotation rate of the solid earth are closely coupled on time scales of up to several years."
Piltdown Man Syndrome
1) The earth rotates.
2) We do not experience winds up to 1600 km/hr on the earth's surface.
3) Therefore the atmosphere must rotate with the earth. QED
How about
1) The earth is stationary
2) If the Earth was rotating we would experience winds up to 1600 km/hr on the earth's surface.
Now, which versions sounds more accurate.
But if you still want to insist that the Earth's atmosphere spins with the Earth, show us your mathematical model to prove this.
Am I asking to much.
In my town, they say put up or shut up.
So put up the mathematical model or say nothing...
The earth rotates relative to the sun. Agree?
-
How about
1) The earth is stationary
2) If the Earth was rotating we would experience winds up to 1600 km/hr on the earth's surface.
Now, which versions sounds more accurate.
But if you still want to insist that the Earth's atmosphere spins with the Earth, show us your mathematical model to prove this.
Am I asking to much.
In my town, they say put up or shut up.
So put up the mathematical model or say nothing...
The problem is, studying the atmosphere (or objects inside it) can not prove the motion of Earth. Your pseudo demonstration shows that you have not understood. You can not prove that the Earth is stationary this way.
We know that the Earth rotates but through other means. Foucault's pendulum to name just one. I know you're going to claim that you have debunked it, although no Flat Earther has ever succeeded.
-
Piltdown Man Syndrome
Is this something that runs in your family?
-
Show me the mathematical model where the Earth's atmosphere rotates with the Earth, to validate your claim!!!
-
Show me the mathematical model where the Earth's atmosphere rotates with the Earth, to validate your claim!!!
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/islas/teaching/2_Equations.pdf (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/islas/teaching/2_Equations.pdf)
-
Show me the mathematical model where the Earth's atmosphere rotates with the Earth, to validate your claim!!!
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/islas/teaching/2_Equations.pdf (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/islas/teaching/2_Equations.pdf)
This is basic information, its a good start, but where are the numbers that pertain to the rotation of the Earth and the atmosphere.
Oh, by the way, these formulas can also be used on an infinite flat plans, like I did in college years ago.
-
Show me the mathematical model where the Earth's atmosphere rotates with the Earth, to validate your claim!!!
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/islas/teaching/2_Equations.pdf (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/islas/teaching/2_Equations.pdf)
This is basic information, its a good start, but where are the numbers that pertain to the rotation of the Earth and the atmosphere.
Oh, by the way, these formulas can also be used on an infinite flat plans, like I did in college years ago.
You're funny ;D
Rotation of the Earth : Section 2.3.1
-
He presented the numerical data in the plots. I say that the accuracy displayed there can not be achieved with his equipment.
I would expect the precision of the results to be of order 5-10%, but this is just a rough guess and definitely depends on the used method.
As he wants to determine a 0.25% difference (at most), I would want an accuracy at this order of magnitude.
But please be honest with youself: Do you really think the obtained data with only 0.5% deviation can be obtained with an iphone 7 video camera and a person jumping?
I am actually curious in your honest answer InFlatEarth. If you guys want more, here is the matlab code I used to "analyze" the data:
fake = zeros(1,100);
fake(1:100) = 9.807;
fluc = rand([2 100]);
fluc2 = (fluc-0.5)./1000;
data = fluc2+9.807
trial = 1:1:100;
figure(1)
plot(trial,data(1,:),'b-o')
title('New York State');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
figure(2)
plot(trial,data(2,:),'b-o')
title('Indonesia');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
I apologize to the people who put effort into showing me the flaws in my "methods". I did learn about the existence of a gravimeter from you guys though. InFlatEarth, I appreciate you defending me, but your defenses don't really make any sense. I did graduate from GW but I have not been a PhD student for two years. In truth, I just graduated College and am starting my PhD at CMU this fall. In the words of my favorite cartoon character ever, "I just got bored. Everybody out." ... JimmyTheCrab probably gets that reference ;)
oh dear, talking crap again?
-
Show me the mathematical model where the Earth's atmosphere rotates with the Earth, to validate your claim!!!
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/islas/teaching/2_Equations.pdf (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/islas/teaching/2_Equations.pdf)
This is basic information, its a good start, but where are the numbers that pertain to the rotation of the Earth and the atmosphere.
Oh, by the way, these formulas can also be used on an infinite flat plans, like I did in college years ago.
You're funny ;D
Rotation of the Earth : Section 2.3.1
Your funny, these are general word, literature majors deal with words, scientist deal with number!!!
Did you think, well maybe you do, that NASA could have sent a man to the Moon, without first crunching out the numbers?
Did they write a general essay on who to send a man to the moon?
Where is the earth model with the numeric calculations?
-
And by the way, the say relative to the earth rotation, which could also be zero!!!
-
Your funny, these are general word, literature majors deal with words, scientist deal with number!!!
You have the primitive equations right there. Or did you not read them ?
Did you think, well maybe you do, that NASA could have sent a man to the Moon, without first crunching out the numbers?
Did they write a general essay on who to send a man to the moon?
Changing the subject. Not surprised.
Where is the earth model with the numeric calculations?
Are you asking for a complete parameterization of Earth in 3D ? With every molecule of rock, water, and air, showing all the current winds and flows and terrains that exist ?
Be more modest. Try to understand atmospheric flow on a rotating Earth. You'll have to dig in your memories of your meteorology class, which I'm sure was part of your degrees.
-
Your funny, these are general word, literature majors deal with words, scientist deal with number!!!
You have the primitive equations right there. Or did you not read them ?
Did you think, well maybe you do, that NASA could have sent a man to the Moon, without first crunching out the numbers?
Did they write a general essay on who to send a man to the moon?
Changing the subject. Not surprised.
Where is the earth model with the numeric calculations?
Are you asking for a complete parameterization of Earth in 3D ? With every molecule of rock, water, and air, showing all the current winds and flows and terrains that exist ?
Be more modest. Try to understand atmospheric flow on a rotating Earth. You'll have to dig in your memories of your meteorology class, which I'm sure was part of your degrees.
Numbers talk, bullshit walks
A mathematical model, has actual calculations and numbers.
You have shown nothing, because the earth is flat.
if you are saying that the computational analysis is to hard and we have to believe that you are telling the truth, then may I remind you of Piltdown Man!!!
You know, I can turn lead into Gold, but the mathematics are too complex for me to show, so you have to believe me, sound familiar....
-
Where's the math to show a flat earth sun can work?
-
Where is the man that can make a yo-yo have an elliptical orbit with just 1 string!!
Just because you can make the funny math to make it true, does not mean that it is true!!!
-
Where is the man that can make a yo-yo have an elliptical orbit with just 1 string!!
Just because you can make the funny math to make it true, does not mean that it is true!!!
Check out the ANALEMA PROBLEM thread to see pictures demonstrating an elliptical orbit.
So about that FE sun, how does it work? Math says fusion can't work for a sun that small.
-
Where is the man that can make a yo-yo have an elliptical orbit with just 1 string!!
Just because you can make the funny math to make it true, does not mean that it is true!!!
Check out the ANALEMA PROBLEM thread to see pictures demonstrating an elliptical orbit.
So about that FE sun, how does it work? Math says fusion can't work for a sun that small.
Which math, true math or the funny math?
If the elliptical orbit is true, then you will have no problem in creating one with a yo-yo and one string!
-
You know, I can turn lead into Gold, but the mathematics are too complex for me to show, so you have to believe me, sound familiar....
I have showed you the maths. You're being dishonest.
Just because you can make the funny math to make it true, does not mean that it is true!!!
Why don't you show your own equations showing that the Earth is flat and stationary ? Go on, we're waiting.
-
Where is the man that can make a yo-yo have an elliptical orbit with just 1 string!!
Just because you can make the funny math to make it true, does not mean that it is true!!!
Check out the ANALEMA PROBLEM thread to see pictures demonstrating an elliptical orbit.
So about that FE sun, how does it work? Math says fusion can't work for a sun that small.
Which math, true math or the funny math?
If the elliptical orbit is true, then you will have no problem in creating one with a yo-yo and one string!
Yo yo's put a tension on a string, the earth is in free fall around the sun.
They are not the same thing.
-
Their are the same,
Tension is a force that can only pull, not push,
Gravity is a force that can only attract, not repeal
The tension in the sting can only hold on the yo-yo, it can't push it away.
The gravity of the earth and the sun can only attract the two objects, it can't repeal them!!
Same principle, but in opposite direction.
same thing!!!
-
Their are the same,
Tension is a force that can only pull, not push,
Gravity is a force that can only attract, not repeal
The tension in the sting can only hold on the yo-yo, it can't push it away.
The gravity of the earth and the sun can only attract the two objects, it can't repeal them!!
Same principle, but in opposite direction.
same thing!!!
Gravitation is said not to be a force. You are 200 years behind.
-
Then what is it, a time machine...
-
Bend spacetime.
Kerbal Space Program is mentioned in here every once in awhile. I suggest playing it to see just how easy elliptical orbits are.
-
Thank you, but I have decided to use actual sun reading from the an observatory, before the heliocentric hypothesis was developed. I don't believe that you would questioned their reading, will you and if you can show me some data from back then, I would be happy to use it.
Don't expect this to happen overnight, I will need some time, since I'm doing some Moon experiment these days...
Care to provide these readings, including any errors?
Piltdown Man Syndrome
1) The earth rotates.
2) We do not experience winds up to 1600 km/hr on the earth's surface.
3) Therefore the atmosphere must rotate with the earth. QED
How about
1) The earth is stationary
2) If the Earth was rotating we would experience winds up to 1600 km/hr on the earth's surface.
Now, which versions sounds more accurate.
I would say the first one but it does skip a few steps.
The second one is pure bullshit.
Lets continue it shall we:
If Earth was rotating and the atmosphere was not rotating with it, there would be 1600 km/hr winds on the surface at the equator.
This would result in massive amounts of drag between the atmosphere and Earth.
Due to earth's much larger mass, the atmosphere would not be able to stop Earth rotating.
Instead the effect of this drag would be to accelerate the atmosphere and have it spin with Earth.
However as this is not perfect, perturbations can occur resulting in small winds.
As such, if Earth was rotating, the atmosphere, for the most part, would be rotating with Earth.
But if you still want to insist that the Earth's atmosphere spins with the Earth, show us your mathematical model to prove this.
No. Give me a reason why I would need to provide it?
Are you suggesting drag wouldn't result in the atmosphere moving?
In my town, they say put up or shut up.
So put up the mathematical model or say nothing...
No. You came here with a bunch of lies, claiming you had proof for things, claiming people are stupid and so on.
So you put up or fuck off.
-
Queue stupid comment deriding using a game to teach physics.
No the yoyo is not the same. The string doesn't change length. While an elliptical orbit changes the distance from the center with the change from potential to kinetic and back of energy.
The only way to achieve this with a string is to allow the centerpoint to be moved with the "pull" of the yoyo, and to shorten and lengthen the string to simulate the change from kinetic to potential and back if the energy. Shorter string, more kinetic, etc.
-
Queue stupid comment deriding using a game to teach physics.
No the yoyo is not the same. The string doesn't change length. While an elliptical orbit changes the distance from the center with the change from potential to kinetic and back of energy.
The only way to achieve this with a string is to allow the centerpoint to be moved with the "pull" of the yoyo, and to shorten and lengthen the string to simulate the change from kinetic to potential and back if the energy. Shorter string, more kinetic, etc.
So you want the Flat Earthers to make a middle of the Earth and sun using an elliptical path, instead of a circular path, I'm I correct about this?
-
Queue stupid comment deriding using a game to teach physics.
No the yoyo is not the same. The string doesn't change length. While an elliptical orbit changes the distance from the center with the change from potential to kinetic and back of energy.
The only way to achieve this with a string is to allow the centerpoint to be moved with the "pull" of the yoyo, and to shorten and lengthen the string to simulate the change from kinetic to potential and back if the energy. Shorter string, more kinetic, etc.
So you want the Flat Earthers to make a middle of the Earth and sun using an elliptical path, instead of a circular path, I'm I correct about this?
No, I was talking about simulating an elliptical orbit with a fixed length yoyo string. Your question btw.
But no you wanted the math. I just explained as simply as possible that the yoyo string and gravity are not the same thing.
Interesting fact here, you know this or you would now have brought it up. It is a false equivalence. Proving you are just a troll.
-
funny men, make up funny math
-
Funny man think funny joke real!
-
funny men, make up funny math
So, the response is to insult. Just another guy not worth my time. Just getting their rocks off, telling themselves they are angering people on the internet from the safety of their mom's basement.
When you grow up a lot more, maybe we can discuss stuff.
-
The truth is the world is round, as you know. Path of the sun proves it.
Are you smart enough to make an animation of the suns path on a Flat Earth?
Are you smart enough to make a free body diagram of the forces involved in sun's movement above a flat earth?
-
The truth is the world is round, as you know. Path of the sun proves it.
Are you smart enough to make an animation of the suns path on a Flat Earth?
Are you smart enough to make a free body diagram of the forces involved in sun's movement above a flat earth?
I have never learned in college how to make a Free Body Diagram of a light source
Have you?
-
The truth is the world is round, as you know. Path of the sun proves it.
Are you smart enough to make an animation of the suns path on a Flat Earth?
Are you smart enough to make a free body diagram of the forces involved in sun's movement above a flat earth?
I have never learned in college how to make a Free Body Diagram of a light source
Have you?
Are you saying the sun has no physical body?
-
The truth is the world is round, as you know. Path of the sun proves it.
Are you smart enough to make an animation of the suns path on a Flat Earth?
Are you smart enough to make a free body diagram of the forces involved in sun's movement above a flat earth?
I have never learned in college how to make a Free Body Diagram of a light source
Have you?
Are you suggesting that the sun is not a physical object? ???
Where does the sun's light come from?
-
Apparently he seems to think that you cannot be a Christian and not be a flat earther
Well, I'm a Christian and I certainly believe we live on a globe.
Mike
-
The truth is the world is round, as you know. Path of the sun proves it.
Are you smart enough to make an animation of the suns path on a Flat Earth?
Are you smart enough to make a free body diagram of the forces involved in sun's movement above a flat earth?
I have never learned in college how to make a Free Body Diagram of a light source
Have you?
Gosh, the sudden decline... :-\
-
The scientist today are really stupid, if you look at their track record. For decades they believed and did research work and Ph’d on the Piltdown Man?
If this group of people were stupid enough to believe that lie, when why would you expect them the smart enough to distinguish another lie?
Their track record has proven that if something fits into their narrative, they will believe it.
The Piltdown Man was a phony, but the scientific community did not investigate it, but spend thousands of dollars in research to support it.
Know, the same hold true to the scientists that believe in the heliocentric hypothesis. If you give them enough CGI videos and some complicated equations, they will believe it, without questions, as long as it fits into their narrative.
They will also defend it to the max.
So bottom line, can the scientific community be trusted that they don’t believe in lies?
The Piltdown Man was essentially a newspaper hoax. Scientists had little to do with it.
-
The scientist today are really stupid, if you look at their track record. For decades they believed and did research work and Ph’d on the Piltdown Man?
If this group of people were stupid enough to believe that lie, when why would you expect them the smart enough to distinguish another lie?
Their track record has proven that if something fits into their narrative, they will believe it.
The Piltdown Man was a phony, but the scientific community did not investigate it, but spend thousands of dollars in research to support it.
Know, the same hold true to the scientists that believe in the heliocentric hypothesis. If you give them enough CGI videos and some complicated equations, they will believe it, without questions, as long as it fits into their narrative.
They will also defend it to the max.
So bottom line, can the scientific community be trusted that they don’t believe in lies?
The Piltdown Man was essentially a newspaper hoax. Scientists had little to do with it.
So would it now be fair to claim
How stupid is InFlatEarth to believe in the Stationary Flat Earth Model?
-
The scientist today are really stupid, if you look at their track record. For decades they believed and did research work and Ph’d on the Piltdown Man?
If this group of people were stupid enough to believe that lie, when why would you expect them the smart enough to distinguish another lie?
Their track record has proven that if something fits into their narrative, they will believe it.
The Piltdown Man was a phony, but the scientific community did not investigate it, but spend thousands of dollars in research to support it.
Know, the same hold true to the scientists that believe in the heliocentric hypothesis. If you give them enough CGI videos and some complicated equations, they will believe it, without questions, as long as it fits into their narrative.
They will also defend it to the max.
So bottom line, can the scientific community be trusted that they don’t believe in lies?
The Piltdown Man was essentially a newspaper hoax. Scientists had little to do with it.
I'm guessing that astronomers and cosmologists had even less to do with it.
-
The scientist today are really stupid, if you look at their track record. For decades they believed and did research work and Ph’d on the Piltdown Man?
If this group of people were stupid enough to believe that lie, when why would you expect them the smart enough to distinguish another lie?
Their track record has proven that if something fits into their narrative, they will believe it.
The Piltdown Man was a phony, but the scientific community did not investigate it, but spend thousands of dollars in research to support it.
Know, the same hold true to the scientists that believe in the heliocentric hypothesis. If you give them enough CGI videos and some complicated equations, they will believe it, without questions, as long as it fits into their narrative.
They will also defend it to the max.
So bottom line, can the scientific community be trusted that they don’t believe in lies?
The Piltdown Man was essentially a newspaper hoax. Scientists had little to do with it.
So what you are telling me is that the media dictates to the scientific community, like CNN (Fake News).
I personally agree, the scientific community has an agenda which is dictated by other no scientific sources.
-
Please provide a mathematical model to explain why the Moon Accelerates?
The time occupied by the moon in returning to the same star is called the time of her sidereal revolution. At the beginning of this century it amounted to 27.32 mean solar days. Its value is not the same in every century. From the time of the most ancient observations until the present day, we find that the sidereal revolution has been gradually becoming shorter and shorter. Will this acceleration always continue? This is a question which observation is incapable of deciding.
Popular Astronomy by Francois Arago 1858 - Page 235
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bNAUAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA257&dq=Popular+astronomy+volume+2&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUsPij6e7TAhWELcAKHQfdDo4Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Popular%20astronomy%20volume%202&f=false (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bNAUAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA257&dq=Popular+astronomy+volume+2&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUsPij6e7TAhWELcAKHQfdDo4Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Popular%20astronomy%20volume%202&f=false)
These are your scientist that said this, and it is not stated in the bible!!!
-
Impressive.
"Paleoanthropologists once fell for a hoax a century ago. Therefore Earth is flat."
WTF.
-
So if you are saying that this is bogus, then can you please explain to me why a Heliocentric believer recommend me to read bogus materials?
This bring into question, ALL source material that you provide that it might be bogus and can't be taken at face value.
Piltdown Man, should I say more...
-
So if you are saying that this is bogus, then can you please explain to me why a Heliocentric believer recommend me to read bogus materials?
This bring into question, ALL source material that you provide that it might be bogus and can't be taken at face value.
Piltdown Man, should I say more...
What are you talking about? What?
-
So if you are saying that this is bogus, then can you please explain to me why a Heliocentric believer recommend me to read bogus materials?
This bring into question, ALL source material that you provide that it might be bogus and can't be taken at face value.
Piltdown Man, should I say more...
What are you talking about? What?
He has no clue...
Science evolves, look at the fact that early humans thought the earth was flat...
Then we (most of us), learned the truth, it's actually a heliocentric oblate spheroid!
-
So if you are saying that this is bogus, then can you please explain to me why a Heliocentric believer recommend me to read bogus materials?
This bring into question, ALL source material that you provide that it might be bogus and can't be taken at face value.
Piltdown Man, should I say more...
What are you talking about? What?
These guys always descend into random gibberish.
-
So what you are telling me is that the media dictates to the scientific community, like CNN (Fake News).
I personally agree, the scientific community has an agenda which is dictated by other no scientific sources.
No, he is saying Piltdown man had very little to do with real science (i.e. the actual scientific community).
-
So if you are saying that this is bogus, then can you please explain to me why a Heliocentric believer recommend me to read bogus materials?
This bring into question, ALL source material that you provide that it might be bogus and can't be taken at face value.
Piltdown Man, should I say more...
What are you talking about? What?
These guys always descend into random gibberish.
nah give him a minute to replace the fuse that has blown. He should be good as new shortly.
-
OK, I have replaced the fuse that you like to talk about.
But the question is "How stupid are the scientist that believe in the Heliocentric Model?"
And today I have posted a thread that shows that the Heliocentric Fair-tail does not work, because at 140800 ago the earth would be spinning at a rate of 60 RPM.
This is pure physics if you know angular velocities and accelerations. For the last 44 years, he have always added a leap second, never removed one.
If you disagree, below are the years that we added the leap second from 1972 till 2005
1972 - +2 second
1973 - +1 second
1974 - +1 second
1975 - +1 second
1976 - +1 second
1977 - +1 second
1979 - +1 second
1981 - +1 second
1982 - +1 second
1983 - +1 second
1985 - +1 second
1987 - +1 second
1989 - +1 second
1990 - +1 second
1992 - +1 second
1993 - +1 second
1994 - +1 second
1995 - +1 second
1997 - +1 second
1998 - +1 second
2005 - +1 second
-
Please provide a mathematical model to explain why the Moon Accelerates?
The time occupied by the moon in returning to the same star is called the time of her sidereal revolution. At the beginning of this century it amounted to 27.32 mean solar days. Its value is not the same in every century. From the time of the most ancient observations until the present day, we find that the sidereal revolution has been gradually becoming shorter and shorter. Will this acceleration always continue? This is a question which observation is incapable of deciding.
Popular Astronomy by Francois Arago 1858 - Page 235
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bNAUAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA257&dq=Popular+astronomy+volume+2&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUsPij6e7TAhWELcAKHQfdDo4Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Popular%20astronomy%20volume%202&f=false (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bNAUAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA257&dq=Popular+astronomy+volume+2&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUsPij6e7TAhWELcAKHQfdDo4Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Popular%20astronomy%20volume%202&f=false)
These are your scientist that said this, and it is not stated in the bible!!!
Please provide an accurate map of the flat earth that fits observable phenomenon.
-
OK, I have replaced the fuse that you like to talk about.
But the question is "How stupid are the scientist that believe in the Heliocentric Model?"
And today I have posted a thread that shows that the Heliocentric Fair-tail does not work, because at 140800 ago the earth would be spinning at a rate of 60 RPM.
This is pure physics if you know angular velocities and accelerations. For the last 44 years, he have always added a leap second, never removed one.
If you disagree, below are the years that we added the leap second from 1972 till 2005
1972 - +2 second
1973 - +1 second
1974 - +1 second
1975 - +1 second
1976 - +1 second
1977 - +1 second
1979 - +1 second
1981 - +1 second
1982 - +1 second
1983 - +1 second
1985 - +1 second
1987 - +1 second
1989 - +1 second
1990 - +1 second
1992 - +1 second
1993 - +1 second
1994 - +1 second
1995 - +1 second
1997 - +1 second
1998 - +1 second
2005 - +1 second
Stop spamming the same topic all over this board when your ridiculous claim was defaulted already. Jeez... ::)
-
OK, I have replaced the fuse that you like to talk about.
But the question is "How stupid are the scientist that believe in the Heliocentric Model?"
And today I have posted a thread that shows that the Heliocentric Fair-tail does not work, because at 140800 ago the earth would be spinning at a rate of 60 RPM.
This is pure physics if you know angular velocities and accelerations. For the last 44 years, he have always added a leap second, never removed one.
If you disagree, below are the years that we added the leap second from 1972 till 2005
1972 - +2 second
1973 - +1 second
1974 - +1 second
1975 - +1 second
1976 - +1 second
1977 - +1 second
1979 - +1 second
1981 - +1 second
1982 - +1 second
1983 - +1 second
1985 - +1 second
1987 - +1 second
1989 - +1 second
1990 - +1 second
1992 - +1 second
1993 - +1 second
1994 - +1 second
1995 - +1 second
1997 - +1 second
1998 - +1 second
2005 - +1 second
Stop spamming the same topic all over this board when your ridiculous claim was defaulted already. Jeez... ::)
Stop laing to the people to hid the truth that your Hypothesis went down the toilet!!!
-
OK, I have replaced the fuse that you like to talk about.
Nope. Still seems to be blown.
You are spamming the same refuted nonsense all over the place.
Leave it in a single thread.
P.S. that list proves your claim about it being linear to be pure BS.
-
OK, I have replaced the fuse that you like to talk about.
Nope. Still seems to be blown.
You are spamming the same refuted nonsense all over the place.
Leave it in a single thread.
P.S. that list proves your claim about it being linear to be pure BS.
By doing this, your problem will not go away
(http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/files/2016/06/Ostrich-man-head-in-sand-300x201.gif)
-
OK, I have replaced the fuse that you like to talk about.
Nope. Still seems to be blown.
You are spamming the same refuted nonsense all over the place.
Leave it in a single thread.
P.S. that list proves your claim about it being linear to be pure BS.
By doing this, your problem will not go away
(http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/files/2016/06/Ostrich-man-head-in-sand-300x201.gif)
Good thing I'm not doing that. I have refuted your BS in the other thread, yet you feel a need to spread it all over the place.
Is it because you know it is pure bullshit and thus want to spread it around so much that it is more likely for someone to be able to see it without the refutation?
That wont magically make it not bullshit, all it would mean is that you might fool some poor fool.
-
Blah, blah, blah blah
all talk and no math.
can't draw a Free Body Diagram that shows the forces that keep the airplane in sync with a spinning Earth.
Then you tell me that the atmosphere hold the plane in sync, but when asked for a Convection Heat Transfer Model of a spinning radiating earth which would show the height fo the velocity that the sphere would affect, would not provide anything.
When confronted with old scientific book which states that the Moon accelerates and asked your to be shown in the heliocentric model, did not provide any model.
When confronted about the leap second and that the earth is slowing down, your response was that I write gibberish.
The only thing that you are good at, is to write essays, maybe Hollywood is hiring, they need a few good story tellers.
This will be the last post in this thread for today.
-
Blah, blah, blah blah
all talk and no math.
can't draw a Free Body Diagram that shows the forces that keep the airplane in sync with a spinning Earth.
Then you tell me that the atmosphere hold the plane in sync, but when asked for a Convection Heat Transfer Model of a spinning radiating earth which would show the height fo the velocity that the sphere would affect, would not provide anything.
When confronted with old scientific book which states that the Moon accelerates and asked your to be shown in the heliocentric model, did not provide any model.
When confronted about the leap second and that the earth is slowing down, your response was that I write gibberish.
The only thing that you are good at, is to write essays, maybe Hollywood is hiring, they need a few good story tellers.
This will be the last post in this thread for today.
You say you're a mechanical engineer. If that's true then you certainly understand the concept of a boundary layer in fluid mechanics. In order to demand a free body diagram of an airplane that keeps it in sync with the rotating globe you would have to first prove that the planetary boundary layer doesn't exist as geophysical/fluid dynamics models prove they do.
Unless you disprove that then you have no cause for demanding an FBD that's any different than those already presented.
So, do you have any proof that the planetary boundary layer doesn't exist?
Mike
-
Blah, blah, blah blah
all talk and no math.
You mean the math I did to show how adding a leap second doesn't actually indicate Earth is slowing down and instead just indicates a day is actually slightly longer than 86400 seconds on average?
Or do you mean the math I did to show how observations of Polaris and the sun completely refute the idea of a flat Earth?
Or the math I did to show that a photon having some finite travel limit would violate the first law of thermodynamics?
Or the math I did to show that an experiment where you film yourself jumping using an iPhone has far too great an error to conclude what they claimed?
Should I go on?
You seem to be the one that is all talk and no math.
You keep bitching and moaning claiming that heat transfers disproves a spinning atmosphere, but you are yet to show this to be the case.
Where is your math to support it?
can't draw a Free Body Diagram that shows the forces that keep the airplane in sync with a spinning Earth.
I had no need to draw one. I explained it without one and I used the one you already provided (it already had the force on it).
Then you tell me that the atmosphere hold the plane in sync, but when asked for a Convection Heat Transfer Model of a spinning radiating earth which would show the height fo the velocity that the sphere would affect, would not provide anything.
Yes, and I explained why it wasn't needed. And you are yet to provide the model either, yet you keep appealing to it.
When confronted with old scientific book which states that the Moon accelerates and asked your to be shown in the heliocentric model, did not provide any model.
Yes, which states, with no real backing. I'd need to investigate it more.
When confronted about the leap second and that the earth is slowing down, your response was that I write gibberish.
No, my response was to completely disprove your claims.
This will be the last post in this thread for today.
Why not make it your last post forever? You never add anything of substance.
-
Blah, blah, blah blah
all talk and no math.
can't draw a Free Body Diagram that shows the forces that keep the airplane in sync with a spinning Earth.
Then you tell me that the atmosphere hold the plane in sync, but when asked for a Convection Heat Transfer Model of a spinning radiating earth which would show the height fo the velocity that the sphere would affect, would not provide anything.
When confronted with old scientific book which states that the Moon accelerates and asked your to be shown in the heliocentric model, did not provide any model.
When confronted about the leap second and that the earth is slowing down, your response was that I write gibberish.
The only thing that you are good at, is to write essays, maybe Hollywood is hiring, they need a few good story tellers.
This will be the last post in this thread for today.
Where's that map that fits with known reality? Also how is I going on determining size and distance of the sun and moon?
-
Blah, blah, blah blah
all talk and no math.
You mean the math I did to show how adding a leap second doesn't actually indicate Earth is slowing down and instead just indicates a day is actually slightly longer than 86400 seconds on average?
Or do you mean the math I did to show how observations of Polaris and the sun completely refute the idea of a flat Earth?
Or the math I did to show that a photon having some finite travel limit would violate the first law of thermodynamics?
Or the math I did to show that an experiment where you film yourself jumping using an iPhone has far too great an error to conclude what they claimed?
Should I go on?
You seem to be the one that is all talk and no math.
You keep bitching and moaning claiming that heat transfers disproves a spinning atmosphere, but you are yet to show this to be the case.
Where is your math to support it?
can't draw a Free Body Diagram that shows the forces that keep the airplane in sync with a spinning Earth.
I had no need to draw one. I explained it without one and I used the one you already provided (it already had the force on it).
Then you tell me that the atmosphere hold the plane in sync, but when asked for a Convection Heat Transfer Model of a spinning radiating earth which would show the height fo the velocity that the sphere would affect, would not provide anything.
Yes, and I explained why it wasn't needed. And you are yet to provide the model either, yet you keep appealing to it.
When confronted with old scientific book which states that the Moon accelerates and asked your to be shown in the heliocentric model, did not provide any model.
Yes, which states, with no real backing. I'd need to investigate it more.
When confronted about the leap second and that the earth is slowing down, your response was that I write gibberish.
No, my response was to completely disprove your claims.
This will be the last post in this thread for today.
Why not make it your last post forever? You never add anything of substance.
I redid your math, I was wrong, but now a new problem has formed. The conservation of angular momentum. See the original thread to talkd about it.
-
I redid your math, I was wrong, but now a new problem has formed. The conservation of angular momentum. See the original thread to talkd about it.
Angular momentum is transferred from Earth to the moon. See details in other thread.