The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: antonindvorak on June 25, 2015, 12:56:43 PM

Title: An unbiased debate.
Post by: antonindvorak on June 25, 2015, 12:56:43 PM
I would like to see if we can come to some sort of an understanding.

Some individuals believe the Earth is flat. Some individuals believe the earth is round (or spherical.) Obviously, only one group of individuals is correct, and the other group is entirely wrong. For the moment, I am willing to take the stance that I believe nothing about the shape of the Earth. It could be flat, or it could be round. However, I must ask that everyone drop their bias for the moment, whether you support a RE or a FE. We are just here to examine the evidence and come to an ultimate conclusion.

So, how can an unbiased person come to a conclusion?

First, let us determine what evidence is valid. Many flat Earth supporters say that video and photography that supports a round Earth cannot be trusted, because the camera lens can alter the material, and it can also be edited using software. I will agree to this, but it also applies for footage that demonstrates the opposite, because for all we know this evidence could also have been modified. So, the kind of evidence we are looking for to reach our conclusion is the kind that cannot be maliciously changed or misinterpreted.

There are a few rules that everyone must follow in this debate:
Break a rule once and you are automatically disqualified from participating in this debate. No exceptions.

Now, let's respectfully begin this thread.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: FETlolcakes on June 25, 2015, 01:43:33 PM
Your suggestion is more than reasonable mate but there's a big problem: This is the FES we're talking about here; the existence of which not even all round-earthers can agree as to whether or not is real or just a really long troll/prank/con-job. No, truly!

If the FE'ers were to agree with your rules, most would be unable to post to begin with (including our much esteemed 'mod') and the others who actually could would have to agree within a few pages the Earth is indeed an oblate spheroid. Am I perhaps exaggerating? Not even close.

All they have is derailing, avoiding questions, ad hominems, fallacies and really, really entertaining delusions about how they think the world works (eg. see some of JRowe & sceptimatic's work; it's gut-busting stuff). Let's face it: that's why most of us are here - for the fun of it.

In their heart of hearts, they know the Earth is a spheroid, all other noise is just an attempt to distract them from their empty lives because they 'figured it out' and that sets them apart and makes them special.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: antonindvorak on June 25, 2015, 01:53:41 PM
Your suggestion is more than reasonable mate but there's a big problem: This is the FES we're talking about here; the existence of which not even all round-earthers can agree as to whether or not is real or just a really long troll/prank/con-job. No, truly!

If the FE'ers were to agree with your rules, most would be unable to post to begin with (including our much esteemed 'mod') and the others who actually could would have to agree within a few pages the Earth is indeed an oblate spheroid. Am I perhaps exaggerating? Not even close.

All they have is derailing, avoiding questions, ad hominems, fallacies and really, really entertaining delusions about how they think the world works (eg. see some of JRowe & sceptimatic's work; it's gut-busting stuff). Let's face it: that's why most of us are here - for the fun of it.

In their heart of hearts, they know the Earth is a spheroid, all other noise is just an attempt to distract them from their empty lives because they 'figured it out' and that sets them apart and makes them special.

- This is aside from the debate -

While I completely agree with your statements, my idea is that this debate can help those who are not trolling and are seriously buying into the FE model come back to reality.

- Bias deactivated -
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 25, 2015, 04:01:40 PM
You said one side or the other has to be right.  However, there is a third possibility: that both sides are wrong. 
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on June 25, 2015, 04:13:47 PM
You said one side or the other has to be right.  However, there is a third possibility: that both sides are wrong.
That isn't that plausible though.
How could the true shape of the earth not even be guessed for so many years?
I know; Conspiracytm
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Dog on June 25, 2015, 05:51:56 PM
In their heart of hearts, they know the Earth is a spheroid, all other noise is just an attempt to distract them from their empty lives because they 'figured it out' and that sets them apart and makes them special.

I don't think I could have put it better.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: robintex on June 25, 2015, 06:42:38 PM
You said one side or the other has to be right.  However, there is a third possibility: that both sides are wrong.

I know the big words in the flat earth vocabulary are "denial" and "fake."

If you want to get into  reality the earth is a globe. No question about it. Period.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 25, 2015, 06:51:27 PM
You said one side or the other has to be right.  However, there is a third possibility: that both sides are wrong.

I know the big words in the flat earth vocabulary are "denial" and "fake."

If you want to get into  reality the earth is a globe. No question about it. Period.

It was declared by the OP that the Earth is either round or flat and those are the only possibillities.  I then said maybe we are both wrong, and you trolls come out of the woodwork, like clockwork.  Maybe you people should get real jobs and leave us non-shills alone to have adult discussions, you arogant &#$.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Ski on June 25, 2015, 07:50:25 PM
You cannot have "an unbiased debate". It's oxymoronic. Further it is somewhat naive.

I'm not even sure one can have unbiased discovery. Each new assumption is built on previous assumptions.


Regardless, in the thread so far there has been one unbiased comment so far, which was rapidly panned. Several posts attacking zeteticists of being in need of some sort of special self-affirmation, including one in which our "unbiased" OP admits his open bias.

Truly remarkable.

The only thing heightening the irony would be if proponents of near-universally accepted globularism feel in such need of affirmation that they had to seek out and find an alternate view point to attack using such compelling arguments as "everyone knows" and then engage in mutual stroking of egos at their brilliance to have accepted the Orthodoxy with question and then "enlightening" we poor, feeble-minded fellows who dare oppose it.    Oh, wait ::)

I think tarot cards are silly, but you won't find me seeking out tarot card forums to enlighten the believers with appeals to popularity and waiting for others to cheer me on so I can feel good about myself at night. Nevermind returning endlessly to said forum to berate them for daring to believe something unpopular, heaven forbid. Some of you are in desperate need of a mirror.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: JerkFace on June 25, 2015, 08:18:34 PM
You said one side or the other has to be right.  However, there is a third possibility: that both sides are wrong.

I know the big words in the flat earth vocabulary are "denial" and "fake."

If you want to get into  reality the earth is a globe. No question about it. Period.

It was declared by the OP that the Earth is either round or flat and those are the only possibillities.  I then said maybe we are both wrong, and you trolls come out of the woodwork, like clockwork.  Maybe you people should get real jobs and leave us non-shills alone to have adult discussions, you arogant &#$.

Twice in the one day I find myself agreeing with jroa,  is there some planetary alignment I'm not aware of?  In addition to round or flat, there is concave earth,   hollow earth,  infinite earth and I'm sure there are others,   in some versions of bendy light theories concave earth makes more sense than flat earth.   Pity the concave earth people don't come around here much, the one ot two that have are certifiable.

There can be no such thing as an unbiased debate but there can be a debate where the focus is on evidence and reason rather than personal attacks,  derailment and modestman type anti-everything trolling.

The simplest and most zetetic argument I can think of for a round earth is the existence of the horizon,  the fact that visibility is limited to just a few miles by the horizon, is pretty conclusive proof the earth is round.   Some logical extensions can be made to that, 

First,  the horizon on a clear day is a sharp line,  if we were looking at the perspective vanishing point it would be 300km away and a blurry blue haze.   
Second,  the higher you climb the further you see,  if you climb to the top of a hill or tall building,  the horizon is further away.  Not possible on a flat eath.
Third.  Sunsets,  sunsets are problematic in flat earth theory,  (look it up in ENAG) in round earth sunsets are simply the sun goes below the horizon. 

That's enough for a start.

Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 27, 2015, 12:17:41 AM
This looks like a great idea, count me in.  In this thread I will be completely unbiased and pretend that I know nothing about the shape of the Earth.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 27, 2015, 01:38:17 AM
This looks like a great idea, count me in.  In this thread I will be completely unbiased and pretend that I know nothing about the shape of the Earth.
I think you and your friends are doing one hell of a job pretending you know about the shape of the Earth so it'll be a good laugh to see you pretend you know nothing. I'd like to see how you manage to start this and end it.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Mainframes on June 27, 2015, 03:32:10 AM
There are scientific instruments and equipment (and very simple ones) that can only work if the earth is spherical.

The German Equitorial telescope mount is one. Two perpendicular axes mounted on a alt-azimuth. Line it up to the polar axis dependant on your latitude and it will track any star in sky throughout the night. Impossible on a flat earth.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 27, 2015, 04:02:30 AM
There are scientific instruments and equipment (and very simple ones) that can only work if the earth is spherical.

The German Equitorial telescope mount is one. Two perpendicular axes mounted on a alt-azimuth. Line it up to the polar axis dependant on your latitude and it will track any star in sky throughout the night. Impossible on a flat earth.
Can you show us your video of it working. It's an unbiased debate so you need to show you proving stuff.
Mikeman has already said that he's willing to pretend that he knows absolutely nothing about a globe and will start from scratch. How about you do the same, which means you can't rely on stuff like this as a proof of anything. Ok?
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Misero on June 27, 2015, 05:30:30 AM
Take your pick:
https://www.google.com/search?q=German+Equatorial+telescope&safe=active&rlz=1C1GGGE___US611US611&es_sm=93&biw=1680&bih=935&tbm=vid&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=SpeOVae4GsiXgwSUtobACg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAw&dpr=1 (https://www.google.com/search?q=German+Equatorial+telescope&safe=active&rlz=1C1GGGE___US611US611&es_sm=93&biw=1680&bih=935&tbm=vid&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=SpeOVae4GsiXgwSUtobACg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAw&dpr=1)
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: charles bloomington on June 27, 2015, 05:40:13 AM
I would like to see if we can come to some sort of an understanding.

Some individuals believe the Earth is flat. Some individuals believe the earth is round (or spherical.) Obviously, only one group of individuals is correct, and the other group is entirely wrong. For the moment, I am willing to take the stance that I believe nothing about the shape of the Earth. It could be flat, or it could be round. However, I must ask that everyone drop their bias for the moment, whether you support a RE or a FE. We are just here to examine the evidence and come to an ultimate conclusion.

So, how can an unbiased person come to a conclusion?

First, let us determine what evidence is valid. Many flat Earth supporters say that video and photography that supports a round Earth cannot be trusted, because the camera lens can alter the material, and it can also be edited using software. I will agree to this, but it also applies for footage that demonstrates the opposite, because for all we know this evidence could also have been modified. So, the kind of evidence we are looking for to reach our conclusion is the kind that cannot be maliciously changed or misinterpreted.

There are a few rules that everyone must follow in this debate:
  • No attacking individuals personally.
  • No biased statements.
  • You must stay on topic.
  • No raging.
  • No provoking anger.
Break a rule once and you are automatically disqualified from participating in this debate. No exceptions.

Now, let's respectfully begin this thread.
I dont understand.  Nor would it be just to understand a contentious sly grub as your self .
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 27, 2015, 05:44:07 AM
Take your pick:
https://www.google.com/search?q=German+Equatorial+telescope&safe=active&rlz=1C1GGGE___US611US611&es_sm=93&biw=1680&bih=935&tbm=vid&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=SpeOVae4GsiXgwSUtobACg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAw&dpr=1 (https://www.google.com/search?q=German+Equatorial+telescope&safe=active&rlz=1C1GGGE___US611US611&es_sm=93&biw=1680&bih=935&tbm=vid&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=SpeOVae4GsiXgwSUtobACg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAw&dpr=1)
Ok, so this mount proves a globe, right? Is this what you're saying?
If that's the case then all you high fore-headed boffins know it to be true, so there's nothing left for you to prove.
Off you trot and let those that want to question this stuff, question it.
Little 17 year old mikeman has already said he will start from scratch as if he's just fell out of his nappy onto the flat floor and looked about the world. Now he has to grow up again with no help from the mainstream books on offer, nor the reliance on thousands of years old so called professors of that time.

I'm still waiting for mikeman to put forward his proof of a globe.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Misero on June 27, 2015, 09:24:09 AM
You asked for a video of them working. There they are.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on June 27, 2015, 01:22:28 PM
You said one side or the other has to be right.  However, there is a third possibility: that both sides are wrong.

See: Torus Earth Theory.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Dog on June 27, 2015, 08:53:51 PM
Take your pick:
https://www.google.com/search?q=German+Equatorial+telescope&safe=active&rlz=1C1GGGE___US611US611&es_sm=93&biw=1680&bih=935&tbm=vid&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=SpeOVae4GsiXgwSUtobACg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAw&dpr=1 (https://www.google.com/search?q=German+Equatorial+telescope&safe=active&rlz=1C1GGGE___US611US611&es_sm=93&biw=1680&bih=935&tbm=vid&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=SpeOVae4GsiXgwSUtobACg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAw&dpr=1)
Ok, so this mount proves a globe, right? Is this what you're saying?
If that's the case then all you high fore-headed boffins know it to be true, so there's nothing left for you to prove.
Off you trot and let those that want to question this stuff, question it.
Little 17 year old mikeman has already said he will start from scratch as if he's just fell out of his nappy onto the flat floor and looked about the world. Now he has to grow up again with no help from the mainstream books on offer, nor the reliance on thousands of years old so called professors of that time.

I'm still waiting for mikeman to put forward his proof of a globe.

"Show me this proof of yours."

*proof displayed*

"Okay. That's cool. I'm going to completely ignore it. You can leave now. Okay now mikeman show me your proof.".........
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 27, 2015, 10:02:44 PM
I'm still waiting for mikeman to put forward his proof of a globe.

There is so much I don't know where to start...

Here goes, just try to debunk this:


Alright, good luck.  Considering which thread this is, I will be open minded and consider your response.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2015, 12:35:21 AM
I'm still waiting for mikeman to put forward his proof of a globe.

There is so much I don't know where to start...

Here goes, just try to debunk this:

  • Sunsets are impossible on a flat Earth.
  • The south celestial pole is impossible on a flat Earth.
  • The Moon always being seen from the same angle from everywhere on Earth is impossible on a flat Earth.
  • The Sun always appears the same size regardless of the time of day, which is impossible on a flat Earth.
  • I can see the International Space Station and other satellites flying overhead.
  • GPS and satellite communications work.
  • I can see further the higher up I am.
  • The conspiracy required to hide the shape of the Earth and fake space travel is WAY too big for any reasonable person to ever hope to sustain.
  • Round Earth predictions come true while flat Earth predictions don't exist.
  • I can't see the Sun at night and FET claims that it should still be above the horizon.
  • The Coriolis Effect is present as a result of the Earth rotating.
  • Stellar Parallax proves that the Earth is moving around the Sun.
  • The curvature of the Earth has to be accounted for when plotting out cities.
  • Space tourism is a thing.
  • Ships disappear beneath the horizon as they go further away, and they can be brought back into view by going higher up.

Alright, good luck.  Considering which thread this is, I will be open minded and consider your response.


This looks like a great idea, count me in.  In this thread I will be completely unbiased and pretend that I know nothing about the shape of the Earth.
So much for PRETENDING you know nothing and then going into frenzy mode of seemingly accepting that all your above are proof's, bearing in mind, you are unbiased and know nothing about a globe.

 ;D
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: JerkFace on June 28, 2015, 03:36:41 AM
So far all I see is arguments for a round earth,   I thought this thread would be an opportunity for flat earth believers to put forward an argument in support of flat earth. 

Why do you think the earth is flat?
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2015, 03:39:36 AM
So far all I see is arguments for a round earth,   I thought this thread would be an opportunity for flat earth believers to put forward an argument in support of flat earth. 

Why do you think the earth is flat?
Because we nor the water falls off. Good enough for me, regardless of all the rest of it.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: JerkFace on June 28, 2015, 04:17:53 AM
So far all I see is arguments for a round earth,   I thought this thread would be an opportunity for flat earth believers to put forward an argument in support of flat earth. 

Why do you think the earth is flat?
Because we nor the water falls off. Good enough for me, regardless of all the rest of it.

If I follow this line of thought,  we are going to end up arguing gravity vs denspressure,   so I say the water,  ( and everything else ) is attracted towards the center of the earth by gravity,  which leads me to ask,  would denspressure work on a globe?  or does denspressure only work if the earth is flat?
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2015, 04:59:38 AM
So far all I see is arguments for a round earth,   I thought this thread would be an opportunity for flat earth believers to put forward an argument in support of flat earth. 

Why do you think the earth is flat?
Because we nor the water falls off. Good enough for me, regardless of all the rest of it.

If I follow this line of thought,  we are going to end up arguing gravity vs denspressure,   so I say the water,  ( and everything else ) is attracted towards the center of the earth by gravity,  which leads me to ask,  would denspressure work on a globe?  or does denspressure only work if the earth is flat?
Denpressure couldn't work on a globe. If the Earth was a globe is would have no foundation for a dome, unless the dome.
To keep atmospheric pressure in and to stop water from falling off, you have to have a system that we know works in real life and not what appears to work in fantasy.

When you pour water onto a flat plate you know it's going to run off. To stop it running off you have to create a barrier. Ice works well. It's a little more complicated than just placing a ring of ice around the rim of the plate. The plate has to be covered or life does not exist in any form.

The ice at the foundation is built up die to no energy reaching the outer edge of it. The inner edge gets so much until it becomes too thick. This creates a build up.
It also builds up from the centre of dense to less dense molecules. The least dense have no more pressure to offer. It freezes against a vacuum, just like a beaker with water in would freeze inside a bell jar if the pressure is evacuated enough.

This dome is self sustaining. It's natural. It is not a construction by man nor any other entity.
This snow globe like Earth is holding everything in.

Your globe  can only hold all it's stuff in by using magic, which is what it used, complete with explanations that make no rational sense, yet are accepted due to severe indoctrination/brainwashing and ridicule for those who dare to question it.

So, as for denpressure versus gravity being your key issue with this. The real issue is much simpler. Gravity is made up. It's a fantasy. It cannot be explained. Mine can but it can only be explained to those who are not of a mind to immediately reject it by trying to use bullshit to do so.

Try it some day if you have the balls to take a different view. I'm not arsed either way. I just say, do it for you as an exercise in alternate thinking.
I've done the globe nonsense. I've been through it all and took the globe side just like you. I only realised how pathetic it was when I had the time to actually think in a critical way over a period of time. I had to be dragged into it with a struggle. Now I have no need to be dragged. I can clearly see the lies in the globe model and a lot of the stuff that goes with it.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: JerkFace on June 28, 2015, 05:07:11 AM
So far all I see is arguments for a round earth,   I thought this thread would be an opportunity for flat earth believers to put forward an argument in support of flat earth. 

Why do you think the earth is flat?
Because we nor the water falls off. Good enough for me, regardless of all the rest of it.

If I follow this line of thought,  we are going to end up arguing gravity vs denspressure,   so I say the water,  ( and everything else ) is attracted towards the center of the earth by gravity,  which leads me to ask,  would denspressure work on a globe?  or does denspressure only work if the earth is flat?
Denpressure couldn't work on a globe. If the Earth was a globe is would have no foundation for a dome, unless the dome.
To keep atmospheric pressure in and to stop water from falling off, you have to have a system that we know works in real life and not what appears to work in fantasy.

When you pour water onto a flat plate you know it's going to run off. To stop it running off you have to create a barrier. Ice works well. It's a little more complicated than just placing a ring of ice around the rim of the plate. The plate has to be covered or life does not exist in any form.

The ice at the foundation is built up die to no energy reaching the outer edge of it. The inner edge gets so much until it becomes too thick. This creates a build up.
It also builds up from the centre of dense to less dense molecules. The least dense have no more pressure to offer. It freezes against a vacuum, just like a beaker with water in would freeze inside a bell jar if the pressure is evacuated enough.

This dome is self sustaining. It's natural. It is not a construction by man nor any other entity.
This snow globe like Earth is holding everything in.

Your globe  can only hold all it's stuff in by using magic, which is what it used, complete with explanations that make no rational sense, yet are accepted due to severe indoctrination/brainwashing and ridicule for those who dare to question it.

So, as for denpressure versus gravity being your key issue with this. The real issue is much simpler. Gravity is made up. It's a fantasy. It cannot be explained. Mine can but it can only be explained to those who are not of a mind to immediately reject it by trying to use bullshit to do so.

Try it some day if you have the balls to take a different view. I'm not arsed either way. I just say, do it for you as an exercise in alternate thinking.
I've done the globe nonsense. I've been through it all and took the globe side just like you. I only realised how pathetic it was when I had the time to actually think in a critical way over a period of time. I had to be dragged into it with a struggle. Now I have no need to be dragged. I can clearly see the lies in the globe model and a lot of the stuff that goes with it.

The whole point of this thread is to have an open mind,  that's where I'm coming from.  (or trying to)

I can see why the earth has to be flat for denspressure to work,   so continuing with denspressure,   what causes the atmospheric pressure to decrease with altitude?
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2015, 05:35:01 AM

The whole point of this thread is to have an open mind,  that's where I'm coming from.  (or trying to)

I can see why the earth has to be flat for denspressure to work,   so continuing with denspressure,   what causes the atmospheric pressure to decrease with altitude?
I've tried to explain this and people just either don't get it because they are incapable of thinking on that line or they immediately put up a gravity shield of thought.

Let's see how you fare again, Geoff. Maybe you've decided to play another game.

I'll say this in a few words. I expect you to try and grasp it by using your common sense.
If atmosphere is pushed UP from the ground into gas form, it's pushed into sea level molecules of compressed mass and now has to have more energy to expand through it, by which time it gets broken down into it's various elements meaning it takes a place higher up due to that energy force.

Because it's expanded due to energy it squeezes through the denser molecules which react by crushing back by smaller but denser numbers.
As this molecule  takes it's place in the atmospheric layer, it displaces molecules in that layer until some will reach the top as they expand due to not having to have any more or very little matter to push through. Because of this they become really expanded meaning less can occupy the space above, not to mention the dome is channeling the matter around it like an arch, leaving less at the top.

Think of it like climbing into bed, only you have to do it by pushing yourself into the covers because your bed is full of wet army blankets stacked up. You lay under them and feel yourself getting crushed. You fight against it by pushing back against those covers, trying to kick them away.
You are so frenzied that you've literally heated yourself up by friction and now you have to push through those blankets to try and get to the top or to a place where you can expand yourself.

Imagine getting to the very top and laying on top of the blankets. You are now only applying your own body onto the blankets below whilst your ceiling facing side has no pressure upon it at all so you have nothing to expand into or struggle against, so you go dormant or go to sleep, until someone else does the same thing and starts nudging your arse to get on top of you. You can call this a semi frozen under dome and so on as you come down.

Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: JerkFace on June 28, 2015, 05:39:00 AM

The whole point of this thread is to have an open mind,  that's where I'm coming from.  (or trying to)

I can see why the earth has to be flat for denspressure to work,   so continuing with denspressure,   what causes the atmospheric pressure to decrease with altitude?
I've tried to explain this and people just either don't get it because they are incapable of thinking on that line or they immediately put up a gravity shield of thought.

Let's see how you fare again, Geoff. Maybe you've decided to play another game.

I'll say this in a few words. I expect you to try and grasp it by using your common sense.
If atmosphere is pushed UP from the ground into gas form, it's pushed into sea level molecules of compressed mass and now has to have more energy to expand through it, by which time it gets broken down into it's various elements meaning it takes a place higher up due to that energy force.

Because it's expanded due to energy it squeezes through the denser molecules which react by crushing back by smaller but denser numbers.
As this molecule  takes it's place in the atmospheric layer, it displaces molecules in that layer until some will reach the top as they expand due to not having to have any more or very little matter to push through. Because of this they become really expanded meaning less can occupy the space above, not to mention the dome is channeling the matter around it like an arch, leaving less at the top.

Think of it like climbing into bed, only you have to do it by pushing yourself into the covers because your bed is full of wet army blankets stacked up. You lay under them and feel yourself getting crushed. You fight against it by pushing back against those covers, trying to kick them away.
You are so frenzied that you've literally heated yourself up by friction and now you have to push through those blankets to try and get to the top or to a place where you can expand yourself.

Imagine getting to the very top and laying on top of the blankets. You are now only applying your own body onto the blankets below whilst your ceiling facing side has no pressure upon it at all so you have nothing to expand into or struggle against, so you go dormant or go to sleep, until someone else does the same thing and starts nudging your arse to get on top of you. You can call this a semi frozen under dome and so on as you come down.

Ok,   I'll need time to think about that.    I'm not Geoff by the way.   
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: charles bloomington on June 28, 2015, 05:44:33 AM
So far all I see is arguments for a round earth,   I thought this thread would be an opportunity for flat earth believers to put forward an argument in support of flat earth. 

Why do you think the earth is flat?
An unbiased debate with the first post asking for flat earthers to understand .  ::)Well you know what thought did . Thought he had left the light on so he lit a candle to see if he had.
The Paul Hogan Show - Leo Wanker Gets Towed: (http://)
Leo Wanker Moto Jump: (http://)
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: JerkFace on June 28, 2015, 05:48:19 AM
So far all I see is arguments for a round earth,   I thought this thread would be an opportunity for flat earth believers to put forward an argument in support of flat earth. 

Why do you think the earth is flat?
An unbiased debate with the first post asking for flat earthers to understand .  ::)Well you know what thought did . Thought he had left the light on so he lit a candle to see if he had.
The Paul Hogan Show - Leo Wanker Gets Towed: (http://)
Leo Wanker Moto Jump: (http://)
So Charles,  why do you think the earth is flat?   Or if you don't,  why do you think it's round?
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: guv on June 28, 2015, 05:53:43 AM
So far all I see is arguments for a round earth,   I thought this thread would be an opportunity for flat earth believers to put forward an argument in support of flat earth. 

Why do you think the earth is flat?
An unbiased debate with the first post asking for flat earthers to understand .  ::)Well you know what thought did . Thought he had left the light on so he lit a candle to see if he had.
The Paul Hogan Show - Leo Wanker Gets Towed: (http://)
Leo Wanker Moto Jump: (http://)



Leo Wanker has his work cut out around this place. Show us your knife.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: charles bloomington on June 28, 2015, 06:00:41 AM
So far all I see is arguments for a round earth,   I thought this thread would be an opportunity for flat earth believers to put forward an argument in support of flat earth. 

Why do you think the earth is flat?
An unbiased debate with the first post asking for flat earthers to understand .  ::)Well you know what thought did . Thought he had left the light on so he lit a candle to see if he had.
The Paul Hogan Show - Leo Wanker Gets Towed: (http://)
Leo Wanker Moto Jump: (http://)



Leo Wanker has his work cut out around this place. Show us your knife.
Didn't anyone ever tell you, you never bring a knife to a gun fight. ;D
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: guv on June 28, 2015, 06:08:29 AM
So far all I see is arguments for a round earth,   I thought this thread would be an opportunity for flat earth believers to put forward an argument in support of flat earth. 

Why do you think the earth is flat?
An unbiased debate with the first post asking for flat earthers to understand .  ::)Well you know what thought did . Thought he had left the light on so he lit a candle to see if he had.
The Paul Hogan Show - Leo Wanker Gets Towed: (http://)
Leo Wanker Moto Jump: (http://)



Leo Wanker has his work cut out around this place. Show us your knife.
Didn't anyone ever tell you, you never bring a knife to a gun fight. ;D


Empty long neck is better close in.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: JerkFace on June 28, 2015, 07:07:41 AM
So far all I see is arguments for a round earth,   I thought this thread would be an opportunity for flat earth believers to put forward an argument in support of flat earth. 

Why do you think the earth is flat?
An unbiased debate with the first post asking for flat earthers to understand .  ::)Well you know what thought did . Thought he had left the light on so he lit a candle to see if he had.
The Paul Hogan Show - Leo Wanker Gets Towed: (http://)
Leo Wanker Moto Jump: (http://)

Ok,  So Leo Wanker is your hero,   I would have thought of you more as a Russel Coight,   outback fencing and all.    So why do you think the earth is flat?  or if I remember rightly you don't think it's flat,  so in that case why do you think it's round?
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 28, 2015, 09:36:57 AM
So much for PRETENDING you know nothing and then going into frenzy mode of seemingly accepting that all your above are proof's, bearing in mind, you are unbiased and know nothing about a globe.

 ;D

You are the one who asked for round Earth proofs.

Because we nor the water falls off. Good enough for me, regardless of all the rest of it.

Why would things fall off the Earth?  What force could there possibly be that pulls water and people off but does not pull the Earth?
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Dog on June 28, 2015, 03:27:19 PM
So much for PRETENDING you know nothing and then going into frenzy mode of seemingly accepting that all your above are proof's, bearing in mind, you are unbiased and know nothing about a globe.

 ;D

"Show me this proof of yours."

*proof displayed by Misero*

"Okay. That's cool. I'm going to completely ignore it. You can leave now. Okay now mikeman show me your proof.".........

*proofs displayed by mikeman*

"Haha watch I'm going to ignore these too! Woo that was fun. You guys need to think critically, like me! Now listen to me ignore gravity and tell you water would fall off the Earth."
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: JerkFace on June 28, 2015, 09:43:33 PM

The whole point of this thread is to have an open mind,  that's where I'm coming from.  (or trying to)

I can see why the earth has to be flat for denspressure to work,   so continuing with denspressure,   what causes the atmospheric pressure to decrease with altitude?
I've tried to explain this and people just either don't get it because they are incapable of thinking on that line or they immediately put up a gravity shield of thought.

Let's see how you fare again, Geoff. Maybe you've decided to play another game.

I'll say this in a few words. I expect you to try and grasp it by using your common sense.
If atmosphere is pushed UP from the ground into gas form, it's pushed into sea level molecules of compressed mass and now has to have more energy to expand through it, by which time it gets broken down into it's various elements meaning it takes a place higher up due to that energy force.

Because it's expanded due to energy it squeezes through the denser molecules which react by crushing back by smaller but denser numbers.
As this molecule  takes it's place in the atmospheric layer, it displaces molecules in that layer until some will reach the top as they expand due to not having to have any more or very little matter to push through. Because of this they become really expanded meaning less can occupy the space above, not to mention the dome is channeling the matter around it like an arch, leaving less at the top.

Think of it like climbing into bed, only you have to do it by pushing yourself into the covers because your bed is full of wet army blankets stacked up. You lay under them and feel yourself getting crushed. You fight against it by pushing back against those covers, trying to kick them away.
You are so frenzied that you've literally heated yourself up by friction and now you have to push through those blankets to try and get to the top or to a place where you can expand yourself.

Imagine getting to the very top and laying on top of the blankets. You are now only applying your own body onto the blankets below whilst your ceiling facing side has no pressure upon it at all so you have nothing to expand into or struggle against, so you go dormant or go to sleep, until someone else does the same thing and starts nudging your arse to get on top of you. You can call this a semi frozen under dome and so on as you come down.

Ok,   I'll need time to think about that.    I'm not Geoff by the way.

You should read up on String Theory and M-Theory as well as Quantum ChromoDynamics,  I see some conceptual parallels with your ideas.   I don't know what your maths background is, but you could learn what you need.

Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 01:09:10 AM
What I learn about will not come from mainstream science books. The trouble with mainstream theoretical science is, it's theoretically hypothetical in many cases.
I prefer to decipher it all myself using what I was born with. The ability to question and dig, plus use my own basic logic and common sense to piece stuff together so that it makes more sense to the lay person.

String theory and all the rest of the stuff can stay inside the books and people's minds who feel somehow superior by actually absorbing this type of explanation.

You people are the real strange one's. Spending your entire lives buying into fantasy that is clearly in your face fantasy.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: JerkFace on June 30, 2015, 01:27:21 AM
What I learn about will not come from mainstream science books. The trouble with mainstream theoretical science is, it's theoretically hypothetical in many cases.
I prefer to decipher it all myself using what I was born with. The ability to question and dig, plus use my own basic logic and common sense to piece stuff together so that it makes more sense to the lay person.

String theory and all the rest of the stuff can stay inside the books and people's minds who feel somehow superior by actually absorbing this type of explanation.

You people are the real strange one's. Spending your entire lives buying into fantasy that is clearly in your face fantasy.

You don't have to accept mainstream science to accept the maths,   I've read where you describe the world in terms of vibrations,   that  sounds somthing like string theory to me,   so why not invest a little time and see what parallels they have to your ideas.   Logic and common sense are the only tools you need.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 02:00:47 AM
What I learn about will not come from mainstream science books. The trouble with mainstream theoretical science is, it's theoretically hypothetical in many cases.
I prefer to decipher it all myself using what I was born with. The ability to question and dig, plus use my own basic logic and common sense to piece stuff together so that it makes more sense to the lay person.

String theory and all the rest of the stuff can stay inside the books and people's minds who feel somehow superior by actually absorbing this type of explanation.

You people are the real strange one's. Spending your entire lives buying into fantasy that is clearly in your face fantasy.

You don't have to accept mainstream science to accept the maths,   I've read where you describe the world in terms of vibrations,   that  sounds somthing like string theory to me,   so why not invest a little time and see what parallels they have to your ideas.   Logic and common sense are the only tools you need.
I don't know what string theory is. I have a valid reason for it. It's because the word string put me off.
Care to explain it as if you're telling it to a kid. No need for equations or maths, just explain it in basic quick format.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Poko on June 30, 2015, 02:34:50 AM
Care to explain it as if you're telling it to a kid. No need for equations or maths, just explain it in basic quick format.

I hope you realize that when people use equations and maths, it's not to show off their knowledge or to make you feel stupid. It's because equations and maths give us an unparalleled amount of accuracy and precision. Trying to explain physics without using math is like trying to explain sailing without wind. It's a non-starter.

The only reason that you are asking for a simple explanation of a complex theory is so you can say "that sounds dumb" or "that's too complicated" and act like you know better than the entire scientific community. Any explanation you are given will be intended for a lay person and will not accurately reflect on the actual theory.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 02:49:31 AM
Care to explain it as if you're telling it to a kid. No need for equations or maths, just explain it in basic quick format.

I hope you realize that when people use equations and maths, it's not to show off their knowledge or to make you feel stupid. It's because equations and maths give us an unparalleled amount of accuracy and precision. Trying to explain physics without using math is like trying to explain sailing without wind. It's a non-starter.

The only reason that you are asking for a simple explanation of a complex theory is so you can say "that sounds dumb" or "that's too complicated" and act like you know better than the entire scientific community. Any explanation you are given will be intended for a lay person and will not accurately reflect on the actual theory.
No, not at all. I just want it explained without people like you being scared to explain it in simple terms because you are too frightened as to how silly it may look.

You see, talking basic will alert the laymen and wake many up. Talk in equations and complications that you pretend are simple run of the mill school like calculations tends to make the laymen shy away from arguing the point or actually seeing anything in it, so they are no further forward.

Merely spewing out massive equations for how flash Gordon's ship works does not mean it works or those equations mean anything at all, except as a fantasy thought process.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Poko on June 30, 2015, 03:03:08 AM
No, not at all. I just want it explained without people like you being scared to explain it in simple terms because you are too frightened as to how silly it may look.

See, you're preemptively trying to say the the theory is silly because of the simple explanation.

You see, talking basic will alert the laymen and wake many up. Talk in equations and complications that you pretend are simple run of the mill school like calculations tends to make the laymen shy away from arguing the point or actually seeing anything in it, so they are no further forward.

It's clear that you didn't actually read my post, or you completely ignored it. If you are given an explanation intended for a lay person, that does not accurately represent the theory. To try to disprove a theory based only on a simple explanation is foolish. If you really want to prove these ideas wrong, you should learn exactly what they are. There really is no pleasing you. If you are given a simple but silly-sounding explanation, you claim that the theory is ridiculous. If you are given a complicated explanation using equations and maths, you claim the theory is too complicated.

Merely spewing out massive equations for how flash Gordon's ship works does not mean it works or those equations mean anything at all, except as a fantasy thought process.

If Flash Gordon's ship were a real thing we could test, then equations for how it works would be very useful. The equations used in the vast majority of physics describe things that can be physically tested. Any formula that describes an untestable phenomena remains hypothetical until it can be tested. It's unlikely that anybody on this forum has given you an equation for something that you personally can not test.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 03:08:51 AM
No, not at all. I just want it explained without people like you being scared to explain it in simple terms because you are too frightened as to how silly it may look.

See, you're preemptively trying to say the the theory is silly because of the simple explanation.

You see, talking basic will alert the laymen and wake many up. Talk in equations and complications that you pretend are simple run of the mill school like calculations tends to make the laymen shy away from arguing the point or actually seeing anything in it, so they are no further forward.

It's clear that you didn't actually read my post, or you completely ignored it. If you are given an explanation intended for a lay person, that does not accurately represent the theory. To try to disprove a theory based only on a simple explanation is foolish. If you really want to prove these ideas wrong, you should learn exactly what they are. There really is no pleasing you. If you are given a simple but silly-sounding explanation, you claim that the theory is ridiculous. If you are given a complicated explanation using equations and maths, you claim the theory is too complicated.

Merely spewing out massive equations for how flash Gordon's ship works does not mean it works or those equations mean anything at all, except as a fantasy thought process.

If Flash Gordon's ship were a real thing we could test, then equations for how it works would be very useful. The equations used in the vast majority of physics describe things that can be physically tested. Any formula that describes an untestable phenomena remains hypothetical until it can be tested. It's unlikely that anybody on this forum has given you an equation for something that you personally can not test.
Give me the equation for 1/6th gravity and then tel me how I test this out, physically.

Tell you what. Tell me how they figured the moons gravity was 1/6th of Earth's.
Show me how they worked out the size of the moon.
Show me how they worked out the size of the sun.

Do all this is basic terms. Do it with the stuff that the scientists of yesteryear used and explain in simple terms how they used their tools and simple observations to come to the answers we have today.

Over to you.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: JerkFace on June 30, 2015, 03:15:59 AM
Care to explain it as if you're telling it to a kid. No need for equations or maths, just explain it in basic quick format.

I hope you realize that when people use equations and maths, it's not to show off their knowledge or to make you feel stupid. It's because equations and maths give us an unparalleled amount of accuracy and precision. Trying to explain physics without using math is like trying to explain sailing without wind. It's a non-starter.

The only reason that you are asking for a simple explanation of a complex theory is so you can say "that sounds dumb" or "that's too complicated" and act like you know better than the entire scientific community. Any explanation you are given will be intended for a lay person and will not accurately reflect on the actual theory.

Good point  explaining string theory without  math,  you miss the elegance and beauty.    But  it can be understood at some level without maths.

In quantum string theory all vibrational modes of tiny strings coorespond to the energy levels of fundamental particles,  strings can be open or closed,   particles like the photon (and graviton) emerge naturally from the equations of string theory, and surprisingly Maxwells equations for electrodynamics appear from string dynamics.   Since the graviton emerges naturally from string theory as well,  so quantum gravity is part of string theory.

String theory equations  have been refined and  evolved into  superstring theory,  string theory allowed the existence of negative mass faster than light tachyons,  superstring theory becomes supersymmetry and postulates that particles have supersymmetric equivalents,  the upgrade at the LHC should reach energy levels needed to test supersymmetry.

At it's heart supersymmetry proposes that forces and particles are equivalent,   M-theory combines a number of different string theories, and a theory of supergravity.   

The standard model of particle physics is a beautiful thing.    Six Quarks,  Six Leptons,  4 forces.   

(http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2012/11/FNAL_ESiegel-600x535.jpg)

That's a good place to stop.    Should I go on,  or are you unbiased enough to continue?

Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 03:44:03 AM
Care to explain it as if you're telling it to a kid. No need for equations or maths, just explain it in basic quick format.

I hope you realize that when people use equations and maths, it's not to show off their knowledge or to make you feel stupid. It's because equations and maths give us an unparalleled amount of accuracy and precision. Trying to explain physics without using math is like trying to explain sailing without wind. It's a non-starter.

The only reason that you are asking for a simple explanation of a complex theory is so you can say "that sounds dumb" or "that's too complicated" and act like you know better than the entire scientific community. Any explanation you are given will be intended for a lay person and will not accurately reflect on the actual theory.

Good point  explaining string theory without  math,  you miss the elegance and beauty.    But  it can be understood at some level without maths.

In quantum string theory all vibrational modes of tiny strings coorespond to the energy levels of fundamental particles,  strings can be open or closed,   particles like the photon (and graviton) emerge naturally from the equations of string theory, and surprisingly Maxwells equations for electrodynamics appear from string dynamics.   Since the graviton emerges naturally from string theory as well,  so quantum gravity is part of string theory.

String theory equations  have been refined and  evolved into  superstring theory,  string theory allowed the existence of negative mass faster than light tachyons,  superstring theory becomes supersymmetry and postulates that particles have supersymmetric equivalents,  the upgrade at the LHC should reach energy levels needed to test supersymmetry.

At it's heart supersymmetry proposes that forces and particles are equivalent,   M-theory combines a number of different string theories, and a theory of supergravity.   

The standard model of particle physics is a beautiful thing.    Six Quarks,  Six Leptons,  4 forces.   

(http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2012/11/FNAL_ESiegel-600x535.jpg)

That's a good place to stop.    Should I go on,  or are you unbiased enough to continue?
I'm absolutely crying with laughing at all that frigging mumbo jumbo.

Just tell me what the hell a string is for crying out loud.  ;D
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Poko on June 30, 2015, 03:53:03 AM
Tell you what. Tell me how they figured the moons gravity was 1/6th of Earth's.
Show me how they worked out the size of the moon.
Show me how they worked out the size of the sun.

Do all this is basic terms. Do it with the stuff that the scientists of yesteryear used and explain in simple terms how they used their tools and simple observations to come to the answers we have today.

Over to you.

Ok, I retract my statement that every piece of information given to you can be independently verified. However, my point still stands that you can test most of it.The mass of the moon is calculated by measuring its gravitational pull using sensitive equipment and satellites that you simply do not have access to.

However, you can independently verify the distance to the sun and moon as well as their diameters. All you need is a telescope and a friend in another part of the world who also has a telescope. There is a lot of math, and frankly I can't be assed to type it all out, so here is a helpful video explaining the process (WARNING: there are a lot of equations and maths involved).

! No longer available (http://#)

This video shows how to calculate the distance to Mars and to the sun, but the same methodology can be applied to calculate the distance to the moon. The video also explains how you can use angular size to calculate the size of the moon and the sun. Keep in mind that this was first done in 1617, before any space agency existed.

I'm absolutely crying with laughing at all that frigging mumbo jumbo.

Just tell me what the hell a string is for crying out loud.  ;D

And I can see that you have written off an attempt at a layman's explanation of String Theory as "mumbo jumbo", exactly as I predicted in my previous posts. Maybe you should make an attempt to learn and understand the information being given to you and understand that the explanation is not complete.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Poko on June 30, 2015, 04:16:00 AM
Don't think I didn't see that post you just made, sceptimatic. Looks like you got the smack down from the moderators for explicit content.

To answer your questions
1. Fred and Martha could calculate their distance from Bobby as long as they know the distance between each other and could see Bobby. They would just need a protractor and a calculator.

2. Oh yeah, baby  ;)
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 04:20:22 AM
Don't think I didn't see that post you just made, sceptimatic. Looks like you got the smack down from the moderators for explicit content.

To answer your questions
1. Fred and Martha could calculate their distance from Bobby as long as they know the distance between each other and could see Bobby. They would just need a protractor and a calculator.

2. Oh yeah, baby  ;)
So they can calculate the distance as long as they know the distance. That's a bit silly isn't it.

Can you explain it a bit clearer so we can tell how wide the road is from Bobby's point of view.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Poko on June 30, 2015, 04:51:22 AM
Don't think I didn't see that post you just made, sceptimatic. Looks like you got the smack down from the moderators for explicit content.

To answer your questions
1. Fred and Martha could calculate their distance from Bobby as long as they know the distance between each other and could see Bobby. They would just need a protractor and a calculator.

2. Oh yeah, baby  ;)
So they can calculate the distance as long as they know the distance. That's a bit silly isn't it.

Can you explain it a bit clearer so we can tell how wide the road is from Bobby's point of view.

Fred and Martha could calculate the distance between Fred and Bobbdy and they could calculate the distance between Martha and Bobby as long if they knew the distance between Fred and Martha.

Bobby could calculate the distance between Bobby and Fred and he could calculate the distance between Bobby and Martha as long as he could move along the road.

Let's do an example problem, math is fun!

Let's say that Bobby is looking at Martha and that both Martha and Bobby are standing on the edge of the road. Bobby walks along the road such that Martha is directly in front of him and in the center of his field of view. Now, Bobby moves 5 meters to the right, still facing forward. He pulls out his protractor and find that the angle between the center of his field of view and Martha is 5 degrees.

He then pulls out his calculator and does the following calculations:

http://i.imgur.com/guNIbDb.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/guNIbDb.jpg)

and he finds that the road is 57.253 meters across.

The actual distance would be closer to 57.150 meters, but Bobby had to round some numbers to make the math easier to represent on paper.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 05:30:30 AM
Don't think I didn't see that post you just made, sceptimatic. Looks like you got the smack down from the moderators for explicit content.

To answer your questions
1. Fred and Martha could calculate their distance from Bobby as long as they know the distance between each other and could see Bobby. They would just need a protractor and a calculator.

2. Oh yeah, baby  ;)
So they can calculate the distance as long as they know the distance. That's a bit silly isn't it.

Can you explain it a bit clearer so we can tell how wide the road is from Bobby's point of view.

Fred and Martha could calculate the distance between Fred and Bobbdy and they could calculate the distance between Martha and Bobby as long if they knew the distance between Fred and Martha.

Bobby could calculate the distance between Bobby and Fred and he could calculate the distance between Bobby and Martha as long as he could move along the road.

Let's do an example problem, math is fun!

Let's say that Bobby is looking at Martha and that both Martha and Bobby are standing on the edge of the road. Bobby walks along the road such that Martha is directly in front of him and in the center of his field of view. Now, Bobby moves 5 meters to the right, still facing forward. He pulls out his protractor and find that the angle between the center of his field of view and Martha is 5 degrees.

He then pulls out his calculator and does the following calculations:

http://i.imgur.com/guNIbDb.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/guNIbDb.jpg)

and he finds that the road is 57.253 meters across.

The actual distance would be closer to 57.150 meters, but Bobby had to round some numbers to make the math easier to represent on paper.
So basically you haven't got a clue and it's not feasible unless you have some kind of reference point.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Poko on June 30, 2015, 06:55:09 AM
Don't think I didn't see that post you just made, sceptimatic. Looks like you got the smack down from the moderators for explicit content.

To answer your questions
1. Fred and Martha could calculate their distance from Bobby as long as they know the distance between each other and could see Bobby. They would just need a protractor and a calculator.

2. Oh yeah, baby  ;)
So they can calculate the distance as long as they know the distance. That's a bit silly isn't it.

Can you explain it a bit clearer so we can tell how wide the road is from Bobby's point of view.

Fred and Martha could calculate the distance between Fred and Bobbdy and they could calculate the distance between Martha and Bobby as long if they knew the distance between Fred and Martha.

Bobby could calculate the distance between Bobby and Fred and he could calculate the distance between Bobby and Martha as long as he could move along the road.

Let's do an example problem, math is fun!

Let's say that Bobby is looking at Martha and that both Martha and Bobby are standing on the edge of the road. Bobby walks along the road such that Martha is directly in front of him and in the center of his field of view. Now, Bobby moves 5 meters to the right, still facing forward. He pulls out his protractor and find that the angle between the center of his field of view and Martha is 5 degrees.

He then pulls out his calculator and does the following calculations:

http://i.imgur.com/guNIbDb.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/guNIbDb.jpg)

and he finds that the road is 57.253 meters across.

The actual distance would be closer to 57.150 meters, but Bobby had to round some numbers to make the math easier to represent on paper.
So basically you haven't got a clue and it's not feasible unless you have some kind of reference point.

Did you not read a single word of my post? I showed you exactly how to calculate the distance, so obviously I have got a clue. If you would like, you could give me any angle other than 5 degrees or any difference in position other than 5 meters and I could find the width of the road. This is the type of problem you would expect to find in a high school geometry textbook. A 4 year old could do exactly what I just did with the proper knowledge of geometry.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 07:20:22 AM
Ok, poko, tell me how you reach this answer.

You are stood on a flat area of land with no reference points around you, just the ground.

Somewhere in the distance I place a large ball. You can use all the basic tools that one of your historical hero's supposedly used to tell me how you figured this out.

Ok, the ball is 6 feet in diameter and it is 1 mile away. You do not know any of this.You are stood with just your tools around you.
Ok now tell me how you figure out the ball's size and distance.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: guv on June 30, 2015, 07:39:03 AM
Ok, poko, tell me how you reach this answer.

You are stood on a flat area of land with no reference points around you, just the ground.

Somewhere in the distance I place a large ball. You can use all the basic tools that one of your historical hero's supposedly used to tell me how you figured this out.

Ok, the ball is 6 feet in diameter and it is 1 mile away. You do not know any of this.You are stood with just your tools around you.
Ok now tell me how you figure out the ball's size and distance.


Dead easy, walk 100 hundred ft at a right angle to the ball, measure angle to ball. Do some trig. Don't you know anything?.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Poko on June 30, 2015, 07:57:26 AM
Ok, poko, tell me how you reach this answer.

You are stood on a flat area of land with no reference points around you, just the ground.

Somewhere in the distance I place a large ball. You can use all the basic tools that one of your historical hero's supposedly used to tell me how you figured this out.

Ok, the ball is 6 feet in diameter and it is 1 mile away. You do not know any of this.You are stood with just your tools around you.
Ok now tell me how you figure out the ball's size and distance.

First, I draw a straight line in the dirt facing towards the ball. Now, I use my protractor to draw a line perpendicular to the line I just drew. I extend this line 20 meters out to my right. Now I draw another line from the endpoint of the 20 meter line towards the ball. Now I use my protractor to measure the angle I just created. I measure the angle to be 89.288 degrees. I know that I have just created a right triangle with the intersections of the lines I have drawn and the ball. Using my calculator, I take the tangent of 89.288, which is 80.46745815. Now I know that the ratio of my distance to the ball to 20 meters is 80.46745815. I multiply 80.46745815 by 20 and get 1609.35 meters. So now I know that the ball is 1609.35 meters away. Now, I use my protractor to find the angular of the ball and I find it to be 0.0651 degrees. Using the tangent half-angle formula, I know that D=2r*tan(a/2), where r is the distance to the object and a is the angular diameter of the object. I plug in my variable and I get this: (3218.7)(tan(0.03255)) = (3218.7)(0.0005681047326) = 1.82856

So now I have 1609.35 meters for the distance to the ball and 1.82856 meters for the diameter of the ball. Both of these values are well within acceptable bounds. guv is absolutely right. Isn't math wonderful?
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 07:59:05 AM
Ok, poko, tell me how you reach this answer.

You are stood on a flat area of land with no reference points around you, just the ground.

Somewhere in the distance I place a large ball. You can use all the basic tools that one of your historical hero's supposedly used to tell me how you figured this out.

Ok, the ball is 6 feet in diameter and it is 1 mile away. You do not know any of this.You are stood with just your tools around you.
Ok now tell me how you figure out the ball's size and distance.


Dead easy, walk 100 hundred ft at a right angle to the ball, measure angle to ball. Do some trig. Don't you know anything?.
Either answer the questions or sit back and allow someone else to.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 08:05:55 AM
Ok, poko, tell me how you reach this answer.

You are stood on a flat area of land with no reference points around you, just the ground.

Somewhere in the distance I place a large ball. You can use all the basic tools that one of your historical hero's supposedly used to tell me how you figured this out.

Ok, the ball is 6 feet in diameter and it is 1 mile away. You do not know any of this.You are stood with just your tools around you.
Ok now tell me how you figure out the ball's size and distance.

First, I draw a straight line in the dirt facing towards the ball. Now, I use my protractor to draw a line perpendicular to the line I just drew. I extend this line 20 meters out to my right. Now I draw another line from the endpoint of the 20 meter line towards the ball. Now I use my protractor to measure the angle I just created. I measure the angle to be 89.288 degrees. I know that I have just created a right triangle with the intersections of the lines I have drawn and the ball. Using my calculator, I take the tangent of 89.288, which is 80.46745815. Now I know that the ratio of my distance to the ball to 20 meters is 80.46745815. I multiply 80.46745815 by 20 and get 1609.35 meters. So now I know that the ball is 1609.35 meters away. Now, I use my protractor to find the angular of the ball and I find it to be 0.0651 degrees. Using the tangent half-angle formula, I know that D=2r*tan(a/2), where r is the distance to the object and a is the angular diameter of the object. I plug in my variable and I get this: (3218.7)(tan(0.03255)) = (3218.7)(0.0005681047326) = 1.82856

So now I have 1609.35 meters for the distance to the ball and 1.82856 meters for the diameter of the ball. Both of these values are well within acceptable bounds. guv is absolutely right. Isn't math wonderful?
Ok, now do the same thing again but with a ball that's half a mile away and 3 feet in diameter. You naturally don't know this, so back out with your tools.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Poko on June 30, 2015, 08:08:16 AM
Ok, poko, tell me how you reach this answer.

You are stood on a flat area of land with no reference points around you, just the ground.

Somewhere in the distance I place a large ball. You can use all the basic tools that one of your historical hero's supposedly used to tell me how you figured this out.

Ok, the ball is 6 feet in diameter and it is 1 mile away. You do not know any of this.You are stood with just your tools around you.
Ok now tell me how you figure out the ball's size and distance.

First, I draw a straight line in the dirt facing towards the ball. Now, I use my protractor to draw a line perpendicular to the line I just drew. I extend this line 20 meters out to my right. Now I draw another line from the endpoint of the 20 meter line towards the ball. Now I use my protractor to measure the angle I just created. I measure the angle to be 89.288 degrees. I know that I have just created a right triangle with the intersections of the lines I have drawn and the ball. Using my calculator, I take the tangent of 89.288, which is 80.46745815. Now I know that the ratio of my distance to the ball to 20 meters is 80.46745815. I multiply 80.46745815 by 20 and get 1609.35 meters. So now I know that the ball is 1609.35 meters away. Now, I use my protractor to find the angular of the ball and I find it to be 0.0651 degrees. Using the tangent half-angle formula, I know that D=2r*tan(a/2), where r is the distance to the object and a is the angular diameter of the object. I plug in my variable and I get this: (3218.7)(tan(0.03255)) = (3218.7)(0.0005681047326) = 1.82856

So now I have 1609.35 meters for the distance to the ball and 1.82856 meters for the diameter of the ball. Both of these values are well within acceptable bounds. guv is absolutely right. Isn't math wonderful?
Ok, now do the same thing again but with a ball that's half a mile away and 3 feet in diameter. You naturally don't know this, so back out with your tools.

I would do the EXACT same thing I did before, only I would replace the numbers with my new observations.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 08:12:53 AM
Ok, poko, tell me how you reach this answer.

You are stood on a flat area of land with no reference points around you, just the ground.

Somewhere in the distance I place a large ball. You can use all the basic tools that one of your historical hero's supposedly used to tell me how you figured this out.

Ok, the ball is 6 feet in diameter and it is 1 mile away. You do not know any of this.You are stood with just your tools around you.
Ok now tell me how you figure out the ball's size and distance.

First, I draw a straight line in the dirt facing towards the ball. Now, I use my protractor to draw a line perpendicular to the line I just drew. I extend this line 20 meters out to my right. Now I draw another line from the endpoint of the 20 meter line towards the ball. Now I use my protractor to measure the angle I just created. I measure the angle to be 89.288 degrees. I know that I have just created a right triangle with the intersections of the lines I have drawn and the ball. Using my calculator, I take the tangent of 89.288, which is 80.46745815. Now I know that the ratio of my distance to the ball to 20 meters is 80.46745815. I multiply 80.46745815 by 20 and get 1609.35 meters. So now I know that the ball is 1609.35 meters away. Now, I use my protractor to find the angular of the ball and I find it to be 0.0651 degrees. Using the tangent half-angle formula, I know that D=2r*tan(a/2), where r is the distance to the object and a is the angular diameter of the object. I plug in my variable and I get this: (3218.7)(tan(0.03255)) = (3218.7)(0.0005681047326) = 1.82856

So now I have 1609.35 meters for the distance to the ball and 1.82856 meters for the diameter of the ball. Both of these values are well within acceptable bounds. guv is absolutely right. Isn't math wonderful?
Ok, now do the same thing again but with a ball that's half a mile away and 3 feet in diameter. You naturally don't know this, so back out with your tools.

I would do the EXACT same thing I did before, only I would replace the numbers with my new observations.
What new observations. How would you know to do this. Just explain what you would do and how you decided it was 3 feet diameter ball and half a mile, now.

Show me the calculations for this like you did with the last.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Poko on June 30, 2015, 08:23:55 AM
Ok, poko, tell me how you reach this answer.

You are stood on a flat area of land with no reference points around you, just the ground.

Somewhere in the distance I place a large ball. You can use all the basic tools that one of your historical hero's supposedly used to tell me how you figured this out.

Ok, the ball is 6 feet in diameter and it is 1 mile away. You do not know any of this.You are stood with just your tools around you.
Ok now tell me how you figure out the ball's size and distance.

First, I draw a straight line in the dirt facing towards the ball. Now, I use my protractor to draw a line perpendicular to the line I just drew. I extend this line 20 meters out to my right. Now I draw another line from the endpoint of the 20 meter line towards the ball. Now I use my protractor to measure the angle I just created. I measure the angle to be 89.288 degrees. I know that I have just created a right triangle with the intersections of the lines I have drawn and the ball. Using my calculator, I take the tangent of 89.288, which is 80.46745815. Now I know that the ratio of my distance to the ball to 20 meters is 80.46745815. I multiply 80.46745815 by 20 and get 1609.35 meters. So now I know that the ball is 1609.35 meters away. Now, I use my protractor to find the angular of the ball and I find it to be 0.0651 degrees. Using the tangent half-angle formula, I know that D=2r*tan(a/2), where r is the distance to the object and a is the angular diameter of the object. I plug in my variable and I get this: (3218.7)(tan(0.03255)) = (3218.7)(0.0005681047326) = 1.82856

So now I have 1609.35 meters for the distance to the ball and 1.82856 meters for the diameter of the ball. Both of these values are well within acceptable bounds. guv is absolutely right. Isn't math wonderful?
Ok, now do the same thing again but with a ball that's half a mile away and 3 feet in diameter. You naturally don't know this, so back out with your tools.

I would do the EXACT same thing I did before, only I would replace the numbers with my new observations.
What new observations. How would you know to do this. Just explain what you would do and how you decided it was 3 feet diameter ball and half a mile, now.

Show me the calculations for this like you did with the last.

Sure. If I do the same thing I did before, my new observed angle will be 88.57621 degrees. The tangent of 88.57621 degrees is 40.2331684355. 40.2331684355 multiplied by 20 meters, the distance we walked, is 804.6634 meters. The angular diameter of the ball is exactly the same as it was before, 0.0651 degrees. Plug that into the tangent half-angle formula and we get D=1609.338 * (tan(0.03255)) = 1609.338 * (0.0005681) = 0.9143

So now we have 804.6634 meters for the distance to the ball and 0.9143 meters for the diameter of the ball.

Please don't ask me to do another one as these do take some time and doing the same math problem over and over again is rather boring. If you've ever taken a geometry course in high school you should be able to do this yourself.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 30, 2015, 08:28:11 AM
Oh scepti you truly do not get geometry huh.  The distance to the ball from the observer decreased without the observer knowing, but when they do the triangulation method of measuring from perpendicular points from the line from them to the ball, the angles would change.  This is how the perspective argument fails miserably.

Edit ** more so trig than geometry, and I see poko posted a better answer while I was typing.  Its all about the right triangles.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 08:39:11 AM
Ok, poko, tell me how you reach this answer.

You are stood on a flat area of land with no reference points around you, just the ground.

Somewhere in the distance I place a large ball. You can use all the basic tools that one of your historical hero's supposedly used to tell me how you figured this out.

Ok, the ball is 6 feet in diameter and it is 1 mile away. You do not know any of this.You are stood with just your tools around you.
Ok now tell me how you figure out the ball's size and distance.

First, I draw a straight line in the dirt facing towards the ball. Now, I use my protractor to draw a line perpendicular to the line I just drew. I extend this line 20 meters out to my right. Now I draw another line from the endpoint of the 20 meter line towards the ball. Now I use my protractor to measure the angle I just created. I measure the angle to be 89.288 degrees. I know that I have just created a right triangle with the intersections of the lines I have drawn and the ball. Using my calculator, I take the tangent of 89.288, which is 80.46745815. Now I know that the ratio of my distance to the ball to 20 meters is 80.46745815. I multiply 80.46745815 by 20 and get 1609.35 meters. So now I know that the ball is 1609.35 meters away. Now, I use my protractor to find the angular of the ball and I find it to be 0.0651 degrees. Using the tangent half-angle formula, I know that D=2r*tan(a/2), where r is the distance to the object and a is the angular diameter of the object. I plug in my variable and I get this: (3218.7)(tan(0.03255)) = (3218.7)(0.0005681047326) = 1.82856

So now I have 1609.35 meters for the distance to the ball and 1.82856 meters for the diameter of the ball. Both of these values are well within acceptable bounds. guv is absolutely right. Isn't math wonderful?
Ok, now do the same thing again but with a ball that's half a mile away and 3 feet in diameter. You naturally don't know this, so back out with your tools.

I would do the EXACT same thing I did before, only I would replace the numbers with my new observations.
What new observations. How would you know to do this. Just explain what you would do and how you decided it was 3 feet diameter ball and half a mile, now.

Show me the calculations for this like you did with the last.

Sure. If I do the same thing I did before, my new observed angle will be 88.57621 degrees. The tangent of 88.57621 degrees is 40.2331684355. 40.2331684355 multiplied by 20 meters, the distance we walked, is 804.6634 meters. The angular diameter of the ball is exactly the same as it was before, 0.0651 degrees. Plug that into the tangent half-angle formula and we get D=1609.338 * (tan(0.03255)) = 1609.338 * (0.0005681) = 0.9143

So now we have 804.6634 meters for the distance to the ball and 0.9143 meters for the diameter of the ball.

Please don't ask me to do another one as these do take some time and doing the same math problem over and over again is rather boring. If you've ever taken a geometry course in high school you should be able to do this yourself.
Not exactly accurate are you but nevertheless. I won't ask you to calculate any more close range stuff. You now need to set up your little tools and tell me about the sun and the moon. I want distance and diameter.

Now bear in mind I've allowed you a calculator, something that your little idols of the time did not have.
Ok, so ready when you are.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Poko on June 30, 2015, 08:40:39 AM
Oh scepti you truly do not get geometry huh.  The distance to the ball from the observer decreased without the observer knowing, but when they do the triangulation method of measuring from perpendicular points from the line from them to the ball, the angles would change.  This is how the perspective argument fails miserably.

Edit ** more so trig than geometry, and I see poko posted a better answer while I was typing

A lot of people have probably already come to this conclusion, but I've noticed something while doing this math. If the sun were truly a spotlight, it would have to be at several different distance away from the earth at once. If you find the distance when the sun is 90 degrees above the horizon for one person and 80 degrees for another person, your calculated distance would be different from it you calculated it with the sun at 90 degrees for one person and 50 degrees for another. In fact, as the difference in angles approaches 90 degrees, the necessary distance of the sun approaches infinity. Keep in mind that these would be for measurements taken at the same time.

It's almost like math completely destroys the flat earth.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 08:41:34 AM
Oh scepti you truly do not get geometry huh.  The distance to the ball from the observer decreased without the observer knowing, but when they do the triangulation method of measuring from perpendicular points from the line from them to the ball, the angles would change.  This is how the perspective argument fails miserably.

Edit ** more so trig than geometry, and I see poko posted a better answer while I was typing.  Its all about the right triangles.
Sit back and scratch your nuts  for a few minutes before you jump in next time, Mikey boy.  :P
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 30, 2015, 08:45:48 AM
Didn't you used to claim to have multiple doctorates scepti?  And you still do not understand high school level mathematics.  Sure, insult away.  It is your only recourse when someone shows you how ignorant you really are.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Poko on June 30, 2015, 08:47:56 AM
Not exactly accurate are you but nevertheless. I won't ask you to calculate any more close range stuff. You now need to set up your little tools and tell me about the sun and the moon. I want distance and diameter.

Now bear in mind I've allowed you a calculator, something that your little idols of the time did not have.
Ok, so ready when you are.

It's inaccurate because finding a trig function of a rational number will always result in an irrational number (if somebody well-versed in math could confirm this for me, that would be great) so you get an infinite number of digits and are forced to round.

As for the sun and the moon, please refer to the video I linked earlier which you clearly did not watch. It explains how you can find the distance to Mars and to the sun. You can use the exact same formulas used in the Mars calculation to find the distance to the moon.

Here's a video that explains how trig functions can be evaluated without a calculator.  I'm just using a calculator because it saves a hell of a lot of time and is free from human error.

! No longer available (http://#)
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: guv on June 30, 2015, 09:04:37 AM
Didn't you used to claim to have multiple doctorates scepti?  And you still do not understand high school level mathematics.  Sure, insult away.  It is your only recourse when someone shows you how ignorant you really are.


He writes books as well and he is a pilot and an explorer and and and a ____put in what you want. Nut case springs to mind.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 09:06:43 AM
Didn't you used to claim to have multiple doctorates scepti?  And you still do not understand high school level mathematics.  Sure, insult away.  It is your only recourse when someone shows you how ignorant you really are.
Use angry ranting for this girly stuff. Let's leave it out of here because it just spoils it. Or pm me and let it all out.  :P
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 09:09:31 AM
Didn't you used to claim to have multiple doctorates scepti?  And you still do not understand high school level mathematics.  Sure, insult away.  It is your only recourse when someone shows you how ignorant you really are.


He writes books as well and he is a pilot and an explorer and and and a ____put in what you want. Nut case springs to mind.
Come on Guv, you're more well versed on here. Don't start damping down with a freshman.  ;D
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 30, 2015, 09:32:23 AM
No no scepti its too late to pull yourself from the muck now and try to pretend that you are taking the high road. 
You began the insulting behavior, yet now you wish for those people who haven't looked into your previous crap to think you are above all that huh. 
Here is what you tried to do.  You tried to set up the perspective argument with the ball's dimensions being halved with the distance.  Your intention was to try to trick someone into saying something that you thought you could disprove with the perspective argument.  Yet someone showed you the math that you asked for twice.  You are now going to try to disprove their math or say that it was done incorrectly, which I think you have already done with no explanation of what may be incorrect.  So you are flaunting your ignorance again.  I am just calling your BS again.  So now you should attack my character, as this is your normal methods.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Poko on June 30, 2015, 09:40:23 AM
You are now going to try to disprove their math or say that it was done incorrectly, which I think you have already done with no explanation of what may be incorrect.

The most he said was that my math was "not exactly" accurate. This combined with complete inability to do the calculations himself shows that he probably has no idea what trigonometry is, and probably thinks it's some form of voodoo magic. Congratulations, scepti. You have successfully shown everyone that 8th grade mathematics is way over your head. Well done.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on June 30, 2015, 09:59:25 AM
Didn't you used to claim to have multiple doctorates scepti?  And you still do not understand high school level mathematics.  Sure, insult away.  It is your only recourse when someone shows you how ignorant you really are.


He writes books as well and he is a pilot and an explorer and and and a ____put in what you want. Nut case springs to mind.
Not forgetting he's also a North Korean dissident and a multi-millionaire inventor.  Who invented a "diving implement".
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 10:09:06 AM
I'm getting a good laugh off you three.  ;D

What about the sun and moon measurements with your historical idols tools of usage, Poko?

I allowed you to play little triangles with the balls., now do it with the sun and moon. 93 million miles away for your sun and 237,000 miles away for your moon. 867,000 miles in diameter for your sun and around 2000 miles for your moon.

point your little stick at the sun like you did with the little ball and let's see how it works. Of course, you don't need to do it. You're not forced. You can back out. Most do when this stuff is put forward.
They usually respond with stuff about my mother and stuff.  ;D
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 30, 2015, 11:56:37 AM
You are now going to try to disprove their math or say that it was done incorrectly, which I think you have already done with no explanation of what may be incorrect.

The most he said was that my math was "not exactly" accurate. This combined with complete inability to do the calculations himself shows that he probably has no idea what trigonometry is, and probably thinks it's some form of voodoo magic. Congratulations, scepti. You have successfully shown everyone that 8th grade mathematics is way over your head. Well done.

I've noticed that your avatar seems to be giving an implied face palm.  That's how I feel around flat earthers too.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 30, 2015, 12:43:19 PM
So for something that is far away, like the Sun, the difference for the leg of the right triangle that we would be using to calculate the position of the Sun would be very miniscule.  Therefore if you do take differing measurements from opposite ends of the globe and the angle still shows very near the same then this means the Sun is very far away.  Also using your perspective examples too, if the angular size of the Sun is the same for two different spots on the Earth at the same time, this could only mean that the Sun is very far away.  If the Sun is very far away, then you can calculate the size of the Sun knowing the distance to it.
But you will call this nonsense since you do not understand it.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: The Ellimist on June 30, 2015, 02:45:05 PM
Don't think I didn't see that post you just made, sceptimatic. Looks like you got the smack down from the moderators for explicit content.

To answer your questions
1. Fred and Martha could calculate their distance from Bobby as long as they know the distance between each other and could see Bobby. They would just need a protractor and a calculator.

2. Oh yeah, baby  ;)
So they can calculate the distance as long as they know the distance. That's a bit silly isn't it.

Can you explain it a bit clearer so we can tell how wide the road is from Bobby's point of view.

Fred and Martha could calculate the distance between Fred and Bobbdy and they could calculate the distance between Martha and Bobby as long if they knew the distance between Fred and Martha.

Bobby could calculate the distance between Bobby and Fred and he could calculate the distance between Bobby and Martha as long as he could move along the road.

Let's do an example problem, math is fun!

Let's say that Bobby is looking at Martha and that both Martha and Bobby are standing on the edge of the road. Bobby walks along the road such that Martha is directly in front of him and in the center of his field of view. Now, Bobby moves 5 meters to the right, still facing forward. He pulls out his protractor and find that the angle between the center of his field of view and Martha is 5 degrees.

He then pulls out his calculator and does the following calculations:

http://i.imgur.com/guNIbDb.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/guNIbDb.jpg)

and he finds that the road is 57.253 meters across.

The actual distance would be closer to 57.150 meters, but Bobby had to round some numbers to make the math easier to represent on paper.
Where'd you get 85 degrees from?
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: homo superior on June 30, 2015, 03:21:45 PM
I hope you realize that when people use equations and maths, it's not to show off their knowledge or to make you feel stupid.

BiJane... is that you?
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 30, 2015, 03:32:26 PM
Don't think I didn't see that post you just made, sceptimatic. Looks like you got the smack down from the moderators for explicit content.

To answer your questions
1. Fred and Martha could calculate their distance from Bobby as long as they know the distance between each other and could see Bobby. They would just need a protractor and a calculator.

2. Oh yeah, baby  ;)
So they can calculate the distance as long as they know the distance. That's a bit silly isn't it.

Can you explain it a bit clearer so we can tell how wide the road is from Bobby's point of view.

Fred and Martha could calculate the distance between Fred and Bobbdy and they could calculate the distance between Martha and Bobby as long if they knew the distance between Fred and Martha.

Bobby could calculate the distance between Bobby and Fred and he could calculate the distance between Bobby and Martha as long as he could move along the road.

Let's do an example problem, math is fun!

Let's say that Bobby is looking at Martha and that both Martha and Bobby are standing on the edge of the road. Bobby walks along the road such that Martha is directly in front of him and in the center of his field of view. Now, Bobby moves 5 meters to the right, still facing forward. He pulls out his protractor and find that the angle between the center of his field of view and Martha is 5 degrees.

He then pulls out his calculator and does the following calculations:

http://i.imgur.com/guNIbDb.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/guNIbDb.jpg)

and he finds that the road is 57.253 meters across.

The actual distance would be closer to 57.150 meters, but Bobby had to round some numbers to make the math easier to represent on paper.
Where'd you get 85 degrees from?
Scepti gave it, saying it was 5 degrees off of when they were at 90 degrees.  and you cannot have an angle of over 90 degrees in any triangle.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Poko on June 30, 2015, 04:35:16 PM
Don't think I didn't see that post you just made, sceptimatic. Looks like you got the smack down from the moderators for explicit content.

To answer your questions
1. Fred and Martha could calculate their distance from Bobby as long as they know the distance between each other and could see Bobby. They would just need a protractor and a calculator.

2. Oh yeah, baby  ;)
So they can calculate the distance as long as they know the distance. That's a bit silly isn't it.

Can you explain it a bit clearer so we can tell how wide the road is from Bobby's point of view.

Fred and Martha could calculate the distance between Fred and Bobbdy and they could calculate the distance between Martha and Bobby as long if they knew the distance between Fred and Martha.

Bobby could calculate the distance between Bobby and Fred and he could calculate the distance between Bobby and Martha as long as he could move along the road.

Let's do an example problem, math is fun!

Let's say that Bobby is looking at Martha and that both Martha and Bobby are standing on the edge of the road. Bobby walks along the road such that Martha is directly in front of him and in the center of his field of view. Now, Bobby moves 5 meters to the right, still facing forward. He pulls out his protractor and find that the angle between the center of his field of view and Martha is 5 degrees.

He then pulls out his calculator and does the following calculations:

http://i.imgur.com/guNIbDb.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/guNIbDb.jpg)

and he finds that the road is 57.253 meters across.

The actual distance would be closer to 57.150 meters, but Bobby had to round some numbers to make the math easier to represent on paper.
Where'd you get 85 degrees from?
Scepti gave it, saying it was 5 degrees off of when they were at 90 degrees.  and you cannot have an angle of over 90 degrees in any triangle.

Actually, I made the numbers up because I was just doing an example problem. If we were to perform this experiment in real with a road 57.253 meters across, we would observe the angle to be 5 degrees.

Scepti, this is the third time I've said it. Watch the video I linked. It explains exactly how we can calculate the distance to the sun. Don't ask me to calculate the distance again until you watch the video.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Poko on June 30, 2015, 04:36:03 PM
Don't think I didn't see that post you just made, sceptimatic. Looks like you got the smack down from the moderators for explicit content.

To answer your questions
1. Fred and Martha could calculate their distance from Bobby as long as they know the distance between each other and could see Bobby. They would just need a protractor and a calculator.

2. Oh yeah, baby  ;)
So they can calculate the distance as long as they know the distance. That's a bit silly isn't it.

Can you explain it a bit clearer so we can tell how wide the road is from Bobby's point of view.

Fred and Martha could calculate the distance between Fred and Bobbdy and they could calculate the distance between Martha and Bobby as long if they knew the distance between Fred and Martha.

Bobby could calculate the distance between Bobby and Fred and he could calculate the distance between Bobby and Martha as long as he could move along the road.

Let's do an example problem, math is fun!

Let's say that Bobby is looking at Martha and that both Martha and Bobby are standing on the edge of the road. Bobby walks along the road such that Martha is directly in front of him and in the center of his field of view. Now, Bobby moves 5 meters to the right, still facing forward. He pulls out his protractor and find that the angle between the center of his field of view and Martha is 5 degrees.

He then pulls out his calculator and does the following calculations:

http://i.imgur.com/guNIbDb.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/guNIbDb.jpg)

and he finds that the road is 57.253 meters across.

The actual distance would be closer to 57.150 meters, but Bobby had to round some numbers to make the math easier to represent on paper.
Where'd you get 85 degrees from?
Scepti gave it, saying it was 5 degrees off of when they were at 90 degrees.  and you cannot have an angle of over 90 degrees in any triangle.

Actually, I made the numbers up because I was just doing an example problem. If we were to perform this experiment in real with a road 57.15 meters across, we would observe the angle to be 5 degrees.

Scepti, this is the third time I've said it. Watch the video I linked. It explains exactly how we can calculate the distance to the sun. Don't ask me to calculate the distance again until you watch the video.

! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yQoz5iWPrbs#)
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: JerkFace on June 30, 2015, 06:41:56 PM
I'm absolutely crying with laughing at all that frigging mumbo jumbo.
Just tell me what the hell a string is for crying out loud.  ;D

It's hard to come down to your level of comprehension but I'll try,    a string is a little bit like a rubber band.   
If it's a circle,  then it's a closed string.    Cut the rubber band so that it now has two ends,   now it's an open string.

Open strings of zero mass are photon like,   closed strings of zero mass are graviton like.   
Study the maths of superstrings vibrating in 11 dimensions  (10 spatial and 1 time)  and you get M-theory.

String theory is completely unproven,  but the maths are so elegant,  it would be sad if it turns out not to be true,  but who knows.
The standard model of particle physics on the other hand is now supported with overwhelming physical evidence and accurate predictions.

Ok, scepti,  back to you for more trolling and insults,  or you can choose to take the other path and indulge in "unbiased debate"  for a change of pace.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Dog on July 01, 2015, 02:08:23 AM
I'm absolutely crying with laughing at all that frigging mumbo jumbo.
Just tell me what the hell a string is for crying out loud.  ;D

It's hard to come down to your level of comprehension but I'll try,    a string is a little bit like a rubber band.   
If it's a circle,  then it's a closed string.    Cut the rubber band so that it now has two ends,   now it's an open string.

Open strings of zero mass are photon like,   closed strings of zero mass are graviton like.   
Study the maths of superstrings vibrating in 11 dimensions  (10 spatial and 1 time)  and you get M-theory.

String theory is completely unproven,  but the maths are so elegant,  it would be sad if it turns out not to be true,  but who knows.
The standard model of particle physics on the other hand is now supported with overwhelming physical evidence and accurate predictions.

Ok, scepti,  back to you for more trolling and insults,  or you can choose to take the other path and indulge in "unbiased debate"  for a change of pace.

Why do research and double-check actual theories when you can troll and spew tinfoil mumbo jumbo instead?
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 01, 2015, 02:40:15 AM
I'm absolutely crying with laughing at all that frigging mumbo jumbo.
Just tell me what the hell a string is for crying out loud.  ;D

It's hard to come down to your level of comprehension but I'll try,    a string is a little bit like a rubber band.   
If it's a circle,  then it's a closed string.    Cut the rubber band so that it now has two ends,   now it's an open string.

Open strings of zero mass are photon like,   closed strings of zero mass are graviton like.   
Study the maths of superstrings vibrating in 11 dimensions  (10 spatial and 1 time)  and you get M-theory.

String theory is completely unproven,  but the maths are so elegant,  it would be sad if it turns out not to be true,  but who knows.
The standard model of particle physics on the other hand is now supported with overwhelming physical evidence and accurate predictions.

Ok, scepti,  back to you for more trolling and insults,  or you can choose to take the other path and indulge in "unbiased debate"  for a change of pace.
Let me see if I can get what you're saying about this string theory. I'll use an analogy to marry up with what's been said.

Ok, so you go to the beach and see a man with a fishing rod. You ask him if he's caught any fish. "not yet, comes the reply but everything's in place to do so, as this is scientific fishing."

 You say: "why is it scientific?"

 Naive wannabe scientist says: "well I'm using this string but you can't see it, yet I've tied it to an invisible hook and cast out. I've calculated the casting distances of this invisible string and the depth at which is will settle. It's beautiful."

You say: "but you can't catch fish on invisible string and hook and you also cannot calculate the distance cast to or the depth, unless you're just pretending you have cast a certain length of invisible string out and done a depth test of the water."

 Naive wannabe scientist says: " ahh, you uneducated people will never understand the complicated formulas that make this so beautiful."

You can say that again.  ::)

In theory the scientific fisherman can catch many fish. The only think stopping him doing so is trying to actually prove that the invisible string and hook will do the job and bring one in so he can shout "eureka".  :P

This is your bullshit science and this is why people's heads are so screwed up by spending time studying this total and utter blatant, in your face, pile of frigging crap.

When you go knocking at a random door, don't tell me that Martha Constance lives there and she's in if you don't really know if Martha Constance does live there, or of she's really in at that time, because that means I am standing there waiting for someone to answer the door called Martha Constance.
Of course, I can't actually call you a liar, because there's a small possibility that there does happen to be a Martha Constance who does live there.
The chances are extremely slim to none but there is a chance. The chances of her answering the door if she's not in, is zero.

The problem is, you know that if I walk away from the house, I will always have the thought that Martha Constance really did live there.
I can say to you, "ahhh but she wasn't in." and you can say" yeah but that was just a theory about her being in. Next time we go back, she may be in and then you'll see."


String theory and all the rest of the shite is simple and easy. It's something that maths beautifully explains that does not exist. It's perfect.

Next time you see a tree with no apples on it, count the apples on that tree and those that are not on the floor that didn't fall off that tree.
This way you can work out pie. You can work out how many pies you can't make with all the apples that are not on nor below that tree.

The math is beautiful.

I'm glad I'm not a weepy person because if I was, I could cry for the naive bastards that actually fall for this and sob for the one's that actually spend most of their life studying it and wondering why they never seem to get any further forward.

I just don't know what to say. One thing for certain. Don't ever call me uneducated and believe that I'm hurting from it. I will be belly laughing at clowns like you that buy into this utter clap trap.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Poko on July 01, 2015, 03:02:18 AM
I'm absolutely crying with laughing at all that frigging mumbo jumbo.
Just tell me what the hell a string is for crying out loud.  ;D

It's hard to come down to your level of comprehension but I'll try,    a string is a little bit like a rubber band.   
If it's a circle,  then it's a closed string.    Cut the rubber band so that it now has two ends,   now it's an open string.

Open strings of zero mass are photon like,   closed strings of zero mass are graviton like.   
Study the maths of superstrings vibrating in 11 dimensions  (10 spatial and 1 time)  and you get M-theory.

String theory is completely unproven,  but the maths are so elegant,  it would be sad if it turns out not to be true,  but who knows.
The standard model of particle physics on the other hand is now supported with overwhelming physical evidence and accurate predictions.

Ok, scepti,  back to you for more trolling and insults,  or you can choose to take the other path and indulge in "unbiased debate"  for a change of pace.
Let me see if I can get what you're saying about this string theory. I'll use an analogy to marry up with what's been said.

Ok, so you go to the beach and see a man with a fishing rod. You ask him if he's caught any fish. "not yet, comes the reply but everything's in place to do so, as this is scientific fishing."

 You say: "why is it scientific?"

 Naive wannabe scientist says: "well I'm using this string but you can't see it, yet I've tied it to an invisible hook and cast out. I've calculated the casting distances of this invisible string and the depth at which is will settle. It's beautiful."

You say: "but you can't catch fish on invisible string and hook and you also cannot calculate the distance cast to or the depth, unless you're just pretending you have cast a certain length of invisible string out and done a depth test of the water."

 Naive wannabe scientist says: " ahh, you uneducated people will never understand the complicated formulas that make this so beautiful."

You can say that again.  ::)

In theory the scientific fisherman can catch many fish. The only think stopping him doing so is trying to actually prove that the invisible string and hook will do the job and bring one in so he can shout "eureka".  :P

This is your bullshit science and this is why people's heads are so screwed up by spending time studying this total and utter blatant, in your face, pile of frigging crap.

When you go knocking at a random door, don't tell me that Martha Constance lives there and she's in if you don't really know if Martha Constance does live there, or of she's really in at that time, because that means I am standing there waiting for someone to answer the door called Martha Constance.
Of course, I can't actually call you a liar, because there's a small possibility that there does happen to be a Martha Constance who does live there.
The chances are extremely slim to none but there is a chance. The chances of her answering the door if she's not in, is zero.

The problem is, you know that if I walk away from the house, I will always have the thought that Martha Constance really did live there.
I can say to you, "ahhh but she wasn't in." and you can say" yeah but that was just a theory about her being in. Next time we go back, she may be in and then you'll see."


String theory and all the rest of the shite is simple and easy. It's something that maths beautifully explains that does not exist. It's perfect.

Next time you see a tree with no apples on it, count the apples on that tree and those that are not on the floor that didn't fall off that tree.
This way you can work out pie. You can work out how many pies you can't make with all the apples that are not on nor below that tree.

The math is beautiful.

I'm glad I'm not a weepy person because if I was, I could cry for the naive bastards that actually fall for this and sob for the one's that actually spend most of their life studying it and wondering why they never seem to get any further forward.

I just don't know what to say. One thing for certain. Don't ever call me uneducated and believe that I'm hurting from it. I will be belly laughing at clowns like you that buy into this utter clap trap.

Your fishing analogy is completely inapplicable. Here is a better one.

Imagine a fisherman who spends his life fishing in a lake. The lake starts out absolutely teeming with fish. The fish are very easy to catch at first. All he has to do is look for the fish, reach down into the lake with his hand, and pluck out a fish. Over time, the lake starts to empty and fish becoming harder and harder to come by and there are no fish visible from the shore. By now the fisherman is very experienced in fishing and he thinks he can find fish if he goes out onto the lake with a boat. Using his knowledge of the locations where fish like to hide.

A passerby sees the fisherman and shouts to him "You fool! There are clearly no fish in this lake! Stop wasting your time!", but the fisherman persists. Finally, in July of 1687, he catches the biggest fish anyone has ever seen.

Determined to find more fish, he works out where the next big fish will be hiding. He sails to that spot and casts his rod. A passerby sees the fisherman and shouts to him "You fool! There are clearly no fish in this lake! Stop wasting your time!", but the fisherman persists. Finally, in December of 1916, he catches another gigantic fish.

Determined to find more fish, he works out where the next big fish will be hiding. He sails to that spot and casts his rod. A passerby sees the fisherman and shouts to him "You fool! There are clearly no fish in this lake! Stop wasting your time!", but the fisherman persists. Finally, in May of 1964, he catches another gigantic fish.

Determined to find more fish, he works out where the next big fish will be hiding. He sails to that spot and casts his rod. A passerby sees the fisherman and shouts to him "You fool! There are clearly no fish in this lake! Stop wasting your time!", but the fisherman persists. Finally, in March of 2013, he catches another gigantic fish.

Determined to find more fish, he works out where the next big fish will be hiding. He sails to that spot and casts his rod. A passerby sees the fisherman and shouts to him "You fool! There are clearly no fish in this lake! Stop wasting your time!", but the fisherman persists. He hasn't caught the next big fish yet, but given his track record, it's reasonable to predict that he will eventually catch it.

In this story, the fisherman represents the great scientific and mathematical minds of history. The fish represent major scientific breakthrough, namely Universal Gravitation, General Relativity, the Cosmic Microwave Background, and the discovery of the Higgs Boson. The passerby who berates the fisherman represents you in all of your scientific ignorance.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: JerkFace on July 01, 2015, 03:05:25 AM
I just don't know what to say. One thing for certain. Don't ever call me uneducated and believe that I'm hurting from it. I will be belly laughing at clowns like you that buy into this utter clap trap.

You are in fact uneducated, and sadder still unable to be educated,  and yes, it hurts you,  I suspect deeper than you are prepared to admit.   So laugh away,  but look in the mirror while you do it.  You need to see who you are actually laughing at.


Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 01, 2015, 03:08:58 AM
I'm absolutely crying with laughing at all that frigging mumbo jumbo.
Just tell me what the hell a string is for crying out loud.  ;D

It's hard to come down to your level of comprehension but I'll try,    a string is a little bit like a rubber band.   
If it's a circle,  then it's a closed string.    Cut the rubber band so that it now has two ends,   now it's an open string.

Open strings of zero mass are photon like,   closed strings of zero mass are graviton like.   
Study the maths of superstrings vibrating in 11 dimensions  (10 spatial and 1 time)  and you get M-theory.

String theory is completely unproven,  but the maths are so elegant,  it would be sad if it turns out not to be true,  but who knows.
The standard model of particle physics on the other hand is now supported with overwhelming physical evidence and accurate predictions.

Ok, scepti,  back to you for more trolling and insults,  or you can choose to take the other path and indulge in "unbiased debate"  for a change of pace.
Let me see if I can get what you're saying about this string theory. I'll use an analogy to marry up with what's been said.

Ok, so you go to the beach and see a man with a fishing rod. You ask him if he's caught any fish. "not yet, comes the reply but everything's in place to do so, as this is scientific fishing."

 You say: "why is it scientific?"

 Naive wannabe scientist says: "well I'm using this string but you can't see it, yet I've tied it to an invisible hook and cast out. I've calculated the casting distances of this invisible string and the depth at which is will settle. It's beautiful."

You say: "but you can't catch fish on invisible string and hook and you also cannot calculate the distance cast to or the depth, unless you're just pretending you have cast a certain length of invisible string out and done a depth test of the water."

 Naive wannabe scientist says: " ahh, you uneducated people will never understand the complicated formulas that make this so beautiful."

You can say that again.  ::)

In theory the scientific fisherman can catch many fish. The only think stopping him doing so is trying to actually prove that the invisible string and hook will do the job and bring one in so he can shout "eureka".  :P

This is your bullshit science and this is why people's heads are so screwed up by spending time studying this total and utter blatant, in your face, pile of frigging crap.

When you go knocking at a random door, don't tell me that Martha Constance lives there and she's in if you don't really know if Martha Constance does live there, or of she's really in at that time, because that means I am standing there waiting for someone to answer the door called Martha Constance.
Of course, I can't actually call you a liar, because there's a small possibility that there does happen to be a Martha Constance who does live there.
The chances are extremely slim to none but there is a chance. The chances of her answering the door if she's not in, is zero.

The problem is, you know that if I walk away from the house, I will always have the thought that Martha Constance really did live there.
I can say to you, "ahhh but she wasn't in." and you can say" yeah but that was just a theory about her being in. Next time we go back, she may be in and then you'll see."


String theory and all the rest of the shite is simple and easy. It's something that maths beautifully explains that does not exist. It's perfect.

Next time you see a tree with no apples on it, count the apples on that tree and those that are not on the floor that didn't fall off that tree.
This way you can work out pie. You can work out how many pies you can't make with all the apples that are not on nor below that tree.

The math is beautiful.

I'm glad I'm not a weepy person because if I was, I could cry for the naive bastards that actually fall for this and sob for the one's that actually spend most of their life studying it and wondering why they never seem to get any further forward.

I just don't know what to say. One thing for certain. Don't ever call me uneducated and believe that I'm hurting from it. I will be belly laughing at clowns like you that buy into this utter clap trap.

Your fishing analogy is completely inapplicable. Here is a better one.

Imagine a fisherman who spends his life fishing in a lake. The lake starts out absolutely teeming with fish. The fish are very easy to catch at first. All he has to do is look for the fish, reach down into the lake with his hand, and pluck out a fish. Over time, the lake starts to empty and fish becoming harder and harder to come by and there are no fish visible from the shore. By now the fisherman is very experienced in fishing and he thinks he can find fish if he goes out onto the lake with a boat. Using his knowledge of the locations where fish like to hide.

A passerby sees the fisherman and shouts to him "You fool! There are clearly no fish in this lake! Stop wasting your time!", but the fisherman persists. Finally, in July of 1687, he catches the biggest fish anyone has ever seen.

Determined to find more fish, he works out where the next big fish will be hiding. He sails to that spot and casts his rod. A passerby sees the fisherman and shouts to him "You fool! There are clearly no fish in this lake! Stop wasting your time!", but the fisherman persists. Finally, in December of 1916, he catches another gigantic fish.

Determined to find more fish, he works out where the next big fish will be hiding. He sails to that spot and casts his rod. A passerby sees the fisherman and shouts to him "You fool! There are clearly no fish in this lake! Stop wasting your time!", but the fisherman persists. Finally, in May of 1964, he catches another gigantic fish.

Determined to find more fish, he works out where the next big fish will be hiding. He sails to that spot and casts his rod. A passerby sees the fisherman and shouts to him "You fool! There are clearly no fish in this lake! Stop wasting your time!", but the fisherman persists. Finally, in March of 2013, he catches another gigantic fish.

Determined to find more fish, he works out where the next big fish will be hiding. He sails to that spot and casts his rod. A passerby sees the fisherman and shouts to him "You fool! There are clearly no fish in this lake! Stop wasting your time!", but the fisherman persists. He hasn't caught the next big fish yet, but given his track record, it's reasonable to predict that he will eventually catch it.

In this story, the fisherman represents the great scientific and mathematical minds of history. The fish represent major scientific breakthrough, namely Universal Gravitation, General Relativity, the Cosmic Microwave Background, and the discovery of the Higgs Boson. The passerby who berates the fisherman represents you in all of your scientific ignorance.
A nice story but he still can't reel them in by having a theory that he has a fishing line (string) dipped into the water, when he simply can't see one.

The person shouting from the riverside won't be able to make out whether he's using a real line or not.
Your analogy isn't quite true to form. Mine is because that's what you people are trying to show other's with your invisible bullshit.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Poko on July 01, 2015, 03:26:49 AM
A nice story but he still can't reel them in by having a theory that he has a fishing line (string) dipped into the water, when he simply can't see one.

The person shouting from the riverside won't be able to make out whether he's using a real line or not.
Your analogy isn't quite true to form. Mine is because that's what you people are trying to show other's with your invisible bullshit.
[/quote]

Your analogy is simply false. The theory is not the fishing line itself. The theory is how the fisherman determines where to go looking for the fish. It can also be used to predict how big the fish will be and what type of fish it will be. That's the point of a theory, to make predictions.

Observation is the fishing line. Observation is how we go looking for scientific discoveries and how we test our theories. If our observations don't match the theory, we go back and adjust the theory. That's how scientific progress is made.

As for not being able to tell whether observation are being made, that's on you. You didn't put in the effort to get a science education so you don't understand the observations being made and the theories being tested. Instead, you chose to sit on your ass and make empty claims in the hope that you will disprove centuries upon centuries of scientific discoveries.

I hate to make an appeal to authority, but do you really think that you know better than the physicists? You don't even understand high school geometry, and you think you know more about physics than the men and women who have dedicated their entire lives to understanding it?
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 01, 2015, 03:36:11 AM
A nice story but he still can't reel them in by having a theory that he has a fishing line (string) dipped into the water, when he simply can't see one.

The person shouting from the riverside won't be able to make out whether he's using a real line or not.
Your analogy isn't quite true to form. Mine is because that's what you people are trying to show other's with your invisible bullshit.

Your analogy is simply false. The theory is not the fishing line itself. The theory is how the fisherman determines where to go looking for the fish. It can also be used to predict how big the fish will be and what type of fish it will be. That's the point of a theory, to make predictions.

Observation is the fishing line. Observation is how we go looking for scientific discoveries and how we test our theories. If our observations don't match the theory, we go back and adjust the theory. That's how scientific progress is made.

As for not being able to tell whether observation are being made, that's on you. You didn't put in the effort to get a science education so you don't understand the observations being made and the theories being tested. Instead, you chose to sit on your ass and make empty claims in the hope that you will disprove centuries upon centuries of scientific discoveries.

I hate to make an appeal to authority, but do you really think that you know better than the physicists? You don't even understand high school geometry, and you think you know more about physics than the men and women who have dedicated their entire lives to understanding it?
[/quote] In 20 words or less, explain what a string is.

In 20 words or less, Explain where it is and in 20 words or less, explain what it does.

In 20 words or less, what microscope picks these up to know they're there.

In 20 words or less, how do they become super string.


Ok, now as far as me knowing more than physicists and not knowing school like geometry. You decide what I know in your mind. Your mind can decide what anyone knows.
What you can't do is actually know what I know. All you can do is try and dissect my mind by what I type and make a decision by what you believe I'm capable of. You are entitled to think of retard or backward schooling, down to the gutter for as long as you want to. It's not ever going to give you any knowing but it will keep your fantasies going, just as mainstream science is doing, so I say, you keep at it if that's what makes you happy.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: JerkFace on July 01, 2015, 03:41:43 AM
One last try,  everything is vibrations,  every particle, every force, all energy,  all vibrations on tiny tiny strings.   

That's it.  18 words, I'm done.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Poko on July 01, 2015, 03:47:20 AM
Keep in mind that these are layman's explanations and do not accurately represent the entire theory.

In 20 words or less, explain what a string is.
A string is a theoretical object which has the potential to be any fundamental particle, depending on how it vibrates.

In 20 words or less, Explain where it is and in 20 words or less, explain what it does.
Strings are everywhere. They make up the universe.

In 20 words or less, what microscope picks these up to know they're there.
A microscope can't observe subatomic particles. Soon, the Large Hadron Collider will allow us to look for strings.

In 20 words or less, how do they become super string.
That question is meaningless and shows that you did not read Rayzor's explanation from earlier.

It's obvious that you are either blind or do not know how to read. Please ask the person who is reading these forum posts to you to read the whole post and not just paraphrase it.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 01, 2015, 04:00:54 AM
One last try,  everything is vibrations,  every particle, every force, all energy,  all vibrations on tiny tiny strings.   

That's it.  18 words, I'm done.
Everything is vibration and frequency, I agree. Tiny strings? you'll have to elaborate in basic terms using explanation without bullshit equations. If you can't exist in logical basic, don't worry about it. Your head's probably been so warped throughout your indoctrination that it's hard to actually be normal now.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: JerkFace on July 01, 2015, 04:05:35 AM
One last try,  everything is vibrations,  every particle, every force, all energy,  all vibrations on tiny tiny strings.   

That's it.  18 words, I'm done.
Everything is vibration and frequency, I agree. Tiny strings? you'll have to elaborate in basic terms using explanation without bullshit equations. If you can't exist in logical basic, don't worry about it. Your head's probably been so warped throughout your indoctrination that it's hard to actually be normal now.
I already tried,  you are on your own from here.   My advice is go and do high school physics for a start.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 01, 2015, 04:17:37 AM
Keep in mind that these are layman's explanations and do not accurately represent the entire theory.
A string is a theoretical object which has the potential to be any fundamental particle, depending on how it vibrates.
Does a theoretical object mean it doesn't actually exist but someone or a few people believe it exists and are looking for it to verify that it does what they are telling people it does?
A bit like a drawing of a fictional monster eating deer in the woods at night. The boffins draw the potential culprit that exists on paper but is never seen and that's what they are looking for, except to find it, they may need a special helicopter with a quark plasma gluon infra/ultra wave/particle gun which has to be switched on at the right time so this monster stands out.

Sort of? am I on the right lines? or are you stringing me along?

Strings are everywhere. They make up the universe.
Ok so strings are on Earth and also in a vacuum of space and vibrate in space that has no matter to vibrate. Maybe you can elaborate a little on this.

A microscope can't observe subatomic particles. Soon, the Large Hadron Collider will allow us to look for strings.


That question is meaningless and shows that you did not read Rayzor's explanation from earlier.

It's obvious that you are either blind or do not know how to read. Please ask the person who is reading these forum posts to you to read the whole post and not just paraphrase it.
Well this is what Rayzor said: Open strings of zero mass are photon like,   closed strings of zero mass are graviton like. 
Study the maths of superstrings  8) vibrating in 11 dimensions  (10 spatial and 1 time)  and you get M-theory.



M theory. Brown girl in the ring, tra la la la la. Oop's that's boney M. Just a little M joke.
Maybe you can explain M in basic a little later so I can skit it. After all this is what it's about. You can't have free run on bullshit hidden with perfume. The smell will always come through.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 01, 2015, 04:20:01 AM
One last try,  everything is vibrations,  every particle, every force, all energy,  all vibrations on tiny tiny strings.   

That's it.  18 words, I'm done.
Everything is vibration and frequency, I agree. Tiny strings? you'll have to elaborate in basic terms using explanation without bullshit equations. If you can't exist in logical basic, don't worry about it. Your head's probably been so warped throughout your indoctrination that it's hard to actually be normal now.
I already tried,  you are on your own from here.   My advice is go and do high school physics for a start.
I done all that. I couldn't stomach anymore of that bullshit. I've decided to find out what the real world is all about. It doesn't include a lot of what you buy into, so I suggest you start taking your own course on real physics instead of fantasy physics that have strings attached.
My theories have no strings attached.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Poko on July 01, 2015, 04:33:27 AM
Does a theoretical object mean it doesn't actually exist but someone or a few people believe it exists and are looking for it to verify that it does what they are telling people it does?
A bit like a drawing of a fictional monster eating deer in the woods at night. The boffins draw the potential culprit that exists on paper but is never seen and that's what they are looking for, except to find it, they may need a special helicopter with a quark plasma gluon infra/ultra wave/particle gun which has to be switched on at the right time so this monster stands out.
Strings are theoretical in the sense that that are predicted using math and using the observations we have already made. They haven't yet been shown to exist, but it's not impossible that they will. The Higgs Boson was a theoretical particle until it was shown to exist in 2013. The graviton is still a theoretical particle, but we still know that gravity exists.

Maybe you can explain M in basic a little later so I can skit it. After all this is what it's about. You can't have free run on bullshit hidden with perfume. The smell will always come through.

I'm not a physicist so I'm not going to pretend to have enough knowledge to give an adequate explanation of M-theory or superstring theory. Wikipedia has a pretty good explanation here https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory). I've linked the simple English version for very special people like you. It has a few 4-syllable words, but hopefully you should be able to follow along.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 01, 2015, 04:49:25 AM
Strings are theoretical in the sense that that are predicted using math and using the observations we have already made. They haven't yet been shown to exist, but it's not impossible that they will. The Higgs Boson was a theoretical particle until it was shown to exist in 2013. The graviton is still a theoretical particle, but we still know that gravity exists.

How can you predict something using maths. You see,. you people can sit and scream about people being a dunce and uneducated and what not, then harp on about telling them to study something that clearly has been scooped out of thin air all supposedly based on maths to manifest it into a theory but still that theory is just that. They do not exist but can be made to exist  POSSIBLY  because the math works for them to exist, even though the maths or the person doing the maths had to manifest this string.

I mean you can manifest anything by doing this crap.

The laughable thing is, if a person says something could be possible, they get laughed at by people like you. You jump in and shout, " citation, please" or "how can you predict this" or " you've just made that up."

Guess what? your string is made up. It doesn't exist and yet you have math and equations to back it up and it does not exist.
The beauty about mainstream science is, anything can be made up and numbers can be attached. Anyone who argues against it is a looney who does not understand physics or science that even kindergarten kids are adept at. This is the utter garbage that gets spewed.
Now wonder I have no respect for people like you. I actually believe people like you are the real nutters. I seriously do.

Half of you people use velcro because you can't even tie your frigging shoe laces and yet you sit on a forum and try and tell people that you are some genius scientist who knows complicated equations but passes them off as simply, basic first grade stuff.

Bollocks. :P

I'm not a physicist so I'm not going to pretend to have enough knowledge to give an adequate explanation of M-theory or superstring theory. Wikipedia has a pretty good explanation here https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory). I've linked the simple English version for very special people like you. It has a few 4-syllable words, but hopefully you should be able to follow along.
I'm sure M theory will be second grade science when you've had 10 minutes to go through it. Hahahahaha.
Oh you people are special, just not in the way you believe.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: JerkFace on July 01, 2015, 05:00:46 AM
Scepti,  I see your problem,  and it's not your fault,   the language of science is mathematics,   you are a frustrated scientist  ( even though you probably deny it ) but you have zero aptitude for mathematics.  So you are destined to go through life blaming everyone and everything for your own shortcomings.   Sorry I can't help you,  only you can do that.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Poko on July 01, 2015, 05:07:47 AM
Strings are theoretical in the sense that that are predicted using math and using the observations we have already made. They haven't yet been shown to exist, but it's not impossible that they will. The Higgs Boson was a theoretical particle until it was shown to exist in 2013. The graviton is still a theoretical particle, but we still know that gravity exists.

How can you predict something using maths. You see,. you people can sit and scream about people being a dunce and uneducated and what not, then harp on about telling them to study something that clearly has been scooped out of thin air all supposedly based on maths to manifest it into a theory but still that theory is just that. They do not exist but can be made to exist  POSSIBLY  because the math works for them to exist, even though the maths or the person doing the maths had to manifest this string.

I mean you can manifest anything by doing this crap

People said the exact same thing about the Higgs Boson. That is, until is was shown to exist experimentally in 2013. The Higgs Boson wasn't predicted by pure maths alone. It was predicted using a combination of observation, previous knowledge, and maths. That's how we were able to correctly predict the existence of a particle before we could observe it.

The laughable thing is, if a person says something could be possible, they get laughed at by people like you. You jump in and shout, " citation, please" or "how can you predict this" or " you've just made that up."

That's because it's important that you have data to back up your claims. In science, we don't accept models because they feel nice and make intuitive sense. We accept models if and only if those models make predictions which can be shown to be correct. When somebody asks you to back up your claim, their simply asking you to subject your ideas to the same scrutiny and testing that every single scientific model was subject to. We're not being especially hard on you because what you say contradicts mainstream science. Every idea has to go through the same process.

Before you say "well what about string theory? that hasn't been tested yet", realize that string theory isn't accepted in mainstream science yet.

Guess what? your string is made up. It doesn't exist and yet you have math and equations to back it up and it does not exist.
The beauty about mainstream science is, anything can be made up and numbers can be attached. Anyone who argues against it is a looney who does not understand physics or science that even kindergarten kids are adept at.

Actually, plenty of ideas in the past have gone against mainstream science and have been correct. Before germ theory became mainstream, it was believed that disease was caused by miasma and that the health of a person was determined by four essential "humors". Before Newtonian physics became mainstream, it was believed that objects in motion eventually stop because they become tired. Science is always open to new ideas. New ideas are the driving force behind scientific progress.

If you want to change mainstream science, all you have to do is create a model, create a prediction based on that model, and test to see if your prediction comes true. If your prediction does not come true, go back and adjust your model or make a new model entirely. If your prediction does come true, start making more predictions and test those. Repeat this process until you have a working model and a large amount of data. Then submit your findings to peer-review and see how they fare. If your idea really does hold up and accurately predicts future events, it may become mainstream science.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 01, 2015, 05:12:12 AM
Scepti,  I see your problem,  and it's not your fault,   the language of science is mathematics,   you are a frustrated scientist  ( even though you probably deny it ) but you have zero aptitude for mathematics.  So you are destined to go through life blaming everyone and everything for your own shortcomings.   Sorry I can't help you,  only you can do that.
I absolutely do not need mathematics to see when bullshit is spouted. I accept what you think about me, now accept what I think about you and other's like you.
The naivety shown by you people borders on the scary. It borders on the same chart as a nearly blind old woman answering the door to roofing con men who tell her her roof will collapse if she doesn't get it done. She then tells them to do it and allows them to take her to the bank to withdraw large amounts of cash to cover it.

That's how gullible and naive you people are in my mind, so fair enough with how you think. It's only thoughts.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 01, 2015, 05:18:26 AM
Strings are theoretical in the sense that that are predicted using math and using the observations we have already made. They haven't yet been shown to exist, but it's not impossible that they will. The Higgs Boson was a theoretical particle until it was shown to exist in 2013. The graviton is still a theoretical particle, but we still know that gravity exists.

How can you predict something using maths. You see,. you people can sit and scream about people being a dunce and uneducated and what not, then harp on about telling them to study something that clearly has been scooped out of thin air all supposedly based on maths to manifest it into a theory but still that theory is just that. They do not exist but can be made to exist  POSSIBLY  because the math works for them to exist, even though the maths or the person doing the maths had to manifest this string.

I mean you can manifest anything by doing this crap

People said the exact same thing about the Higgs Boson. That is, until is was shown to exist experimentally in 2013. The Higgs Boson wasn't predicted by pure maths alone. It was predicted using a combination of observation, previous knowledge, and maths. That's how we were able to correctly predict the existence of a particle before we could observe it.

The laughable thing is, if a person says something could be possible, they get laughed at by people like you. You jump in and shout, " citation, please" or "how can you predict this" or " you've just made that up."

That's because it's important that you have data to back up your claims. In science, we don't accept models because they feel nice and make intuitive sense. We accept models if and only if those models make predictions which can be shown to be correct. When somebody asks you to back up your claim, their simply asking you to subject your ideas to the same scrutiny and testing that every single scientific model was subject to. We're not being especially hard on you because what you say contradicts mainstream science. Every idea has to go through the same process.

Before you say "well what about string theory? that hasn't been tested yet", realize that string theory isn't accepted in mainstream science yet.

Guess what? your string is made up. It doesn't exist and yet you have math and equations to back it up and it does not exist.
The beauty about mainstream science is, anything can be made up and numbers can be attached. Anyone who argues against it is a looney who does not understand physics or science that even kindergarten kids are adept at.

Actually, plenty of ideas in the past have gone against mainstream science and have been correct. Before germ theory became mainstream, it was believed that disease was caused by miasma and that the health of a person was determined by four essential "humors". Before Newtonian physics became mainstream, it was believed that objects in motion eventually stop because they become tired. Science is always open to new ideas. New ideas are the driving force behind scientific progress.

If you want to change mainstream science, all you have to do is create a model, create a prediction based on that model, and test to see if your prediction comes true. If your prediction does not come true, go back and adjust your model or make a new model entirely. If your prediction does come true, start making more predictions and test those. Repeat this process until you have a working model and a large amount of data. Then submit your findings to peer-review and see how they fare. If your idea really does hold up and accurately predicts future events, it may become mainstream science.
So what is the Higgs boson right now, now that it's been proven?

How do we see it and how is it made and what is its purpose.
Also, tell me how Higgs boson first manifested itself into someone's mind. I'll try and help. I think Peter Higgs had said he was walking along in Scotland (maybe) on a snowy day and he had his Eureka moment. I may be wrong on this but I di recall something along those lines.
So what was his Eureka moment that manifested this boson into life to eventually become real not so long ago?
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Poko on July 01, 2015, 05:23:35 AM
I absolutely do not need mathematics to see when bullshit is spouted.

1. An object which starts at rest and accelerates at 4m/s/s for 6 seconds will have traveled 64 meters by the end of the 6 seconds.
2. An object which starts at rest and accelerates at 6m/s/s for 4 seconds will have traveled 72 meters by the end of the 4 seconds.
3. An object which starts at rest and accelerates at 12m/s/s for 3 seconds will have traveled 54 meters by the end of the 3 second.

Without using any mathematics, tell me which of the above statements is bullshit:
A. 1
B. 1 and 2
C. 2 and 3
D. 3
E. all of the above
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 01, 2015, 05:38:29 AM
I absolutely do not need mathematics to see when bullshit is spouted.

1. An object which starts at rest and accelerates at 4m/s/s for 6 seconds will have traveled 64 meters by the end of the 6 seconds.
2. An object which starts at rest and accelerates at 6m/s/s for 4 seconds will have traveled 72 meters by the end of the 4 seconds.
3. An object which starts at rest and accelerates at 12m/s/s for 3 seconds will have traveled 54 meters by the end of the 3 second.

Without using any mathematics, tell me which of the above statements is bullshit:
A. 1
B. 1 and 2
C. 2 and 3
D. 3
E. all of the above
Possibly all right and possibly all wrong.

Regardless of that. I'm not talking about the basics of stuff like this. I'm talking about the stuff that cannot be physically proven.
Arsing about with this stuff means nothing.

When it comes to your Higgs and string and big bang bollocks and all the rest of the crap, as well as rockets in space and gravity on a moon or gravity on Earth and warped space time. The list is absolutely endless of bullshit that will remain bullshit until someone physically proves it not to be by allowing the public to see it all in action, by numbers, not by a pretence of one random picked lucky bastard being put into space or whatever.

 A lot of these theoretical scientists are good story tellers and sci-fi writers. that's all they ever will be.
The real scientists are actually at work doing physical stuff as well as solving problems that are physically used and seen by the public.

The fake one's are busy giving press conferences proclaiming mars rover success or finding particles that someone thought off whilst having a their morning crap.

Stop believing in nonsense and start working some real stuff out if you're supposed to be a scientist.
Anyone can tell a story but only the good story tellers get to bullshit the nation by hard back or paper back.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Poko on July 01, 2015, 05:41:18 AM
So what is the Higgs boson right now, now that it's been proven?

How do we see it and how is it made and what is its purpose.
Also, tell me how Higgs boson first manifested itself into someone's mind. I'll try and help. I think Peter Higgs had said he was walking along in Scotland (maybe) on a snowy day and he had his Eureka moment. I may be wrong on this but I di recall something along those lines.
So what was his Eureka moment that manifested this boson into life to eventually become real not so long ago?

In our current model of physics, the Higgs Boson is one of the fundamental particles in the universe. It was first theorized to exist in the 1960's. Basically, the Standard Model at the time predicted that certain particles would not have mass. However, we observed that these particles did have mass. So, the Higgs Boson was theorized to explain the presence of mass where we otherwise wouldn't expect to see it. There was quite a bit of controversy over whether or not this particle actually existed because there was no experimental evidence. But, in 2013, a particle was detected which matched the description of the Higgs Boson exactly.

As for the Big Bang, the story is quite remarkable. The Big Bang was, at first, entirely theoretical. Edwin Hubble observed that objects in space are moving away from each other and that the rate at which they are moving away from each other is proportional to the distance between them. This suggests that space itself is expanding. It was then hypothesized that, because space is expanding now, then at one point it was all together. In 1948, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman predicted what is called the cosmic microwave background. It is essentially the "afterglow" of the Big Bang.

A few years later, Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson were building a radiometer which they intended to use for astronomy and satellite communication. When they tested out the radiometer, they found a faint static and could't locate the source. They pointed the radiometer in every direction and they still detected constant static. They thought that maybe some part on the radiometer was loose, so they made sure everything was tight again. They though that maybe bird droppings had gotten into the antenna and that was the cause, so they cleaned out the antenna. After trying everything they could think of to eliminate the static, they still detected it. Despite the static, they still decided to publish their results anyway.

As it turns out, this static matched the description of the cosmic microwave background almost exactly. Two astronomers who were not involved in creating the Big Bang theory had unknowingly proven it. Now, we have a much better idea of what the cosmic microwave background looks like because we know how to look for it, and it still matches the predictions made back in 1948 before any observations were made.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 01, 2015, 05:52:25 AM
So what is the Higgs boson right now, now that it's been proven?

How do we see it and how is it made and what is its purpose.
Also, tell me how Higgs boson first manifested itself into someone's mind. I'll try and help. I think Peter Higgs had said he was walking along in Scotland (maybe) on a snowy day and he had his Eureka moment. I may be wrong on this but I di recall something along those lines.
So what was his Eureka moment that manifested this boson into life to eventually become real not so long ago?

In our current model of physics, the Higgs Boson is one of the fundamental particles in the universe. It was first theorized to exist in the 1960's. Basically, the Standard Model at the time predicted that certain particles would not have mass. However, we observed that these particles did have mass. So, the Higgs Boson was theorized to explain the presence of mass where we otherwise wouldn't expect to see it. There was quite a bit of controversy over whether or not this particle actually existed because there was no experimental evidence. But, in 2013, a particle was detected which matched the description of the Higgs Boson exactly.
1960's and a boson was thought of. A particle of some sort. The particles were thought not to have mass but them found to have mass
This caused trouble until this particle appeared...WHERE?

How was the mass of this particle measured and by what microscope was this particle seen?
Did they manage to keep this particle, like freezing it or something or is it more magical than this?

Go on, let's see what you got.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Poko on July 01, 2015, 06:12:39 AM
1960's and a boson was thought of. A particle of some sort. The particles were thought not to have mass but them found to have mass
This caused trouble until this particle appeared...WHERE?

How was the mass of this particle measured and by what microscope was this particle seen?
Did they manage to keep this particle, like freezing it or something or is it more magical than this?

Go on, let's see what you got.

The particle is believed to exist wherever there is mass, but it was directly observed for the first time in the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland. The mass of very small particles is determined using very mathy equations you probably wouldn't be interested in. To put it simply, it is calculated using the particle's energy and its momentum. Like I said before, microscopes aren't used to look at sub-atomic particles. The particle was observed in the CMS and ATLAS experiments within the Large Hadron Collider. Here's a cimple rundown of how the detectors in the LHC work http://home.web.cern.ch/about/how-detector-works (http://home.web.cern.ch/about/how-detector-works).

Honestly I'm just googling these answers. If you really want to know these things, you can look these things up yourself on CERN's website. Also, you should go back up and read my previous post. I edited it and told the story of the Big Bang.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 01, 2015, 06:29:09 AM
1960's and a boson was thought of. A particle of some sort. The particles were thought not to have mass but them found to have mass
This caused trouble until this particle appeared...WHERE?

How was the mass of this particle measured and by what microscope was this particle seen?
Did they manage to keep this particle, like freezing it or something or is it more magical than this?

Go on, let's see what you got.

The particle is believed to exist wherever there is mass, but it was directly observed for the first time in the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland. The mass of very small particles is determined using very mathy equations you probably wouldn't be interested in. To put it simply, it is calculated using the particle's energy and its momentum. Like I said before, microscopes aren't used to look at sub-atomic particles. The particle was observed in the CMS and ATLAS experiments within the Large Hadron Collider. Here's a cimple rundown of how the detectors in the LHC work http://home.web.cern.ch/about/how-detector-works (http://home.web.cern.ch/about/how-detector-works).

Honestly I'm just googling these answers. If you really want to know these things, you can look these things up yourself on CERN's website. Also, you should go back up and read my previous post. I edited it and told the story of the Big Bang.
I'm well aware you're googling the answers. I'm well aware that you have no clue how in the hell all this stuff works.
I'm also aware that you are too proud to make yourself look anything but intelligent by admitting that you know very little  about the physics that you try to bestow on other's.

What the hell are you actually doing here. I mean, why come to a place to tell people who are sceptical of what you believe in and attempt to tell them what you believe in, whilst trying to get them to believe in it. What gain do you get?

It's as sad as hell because you're gaining nothing. You can argue that you're gaining more education on your physics by googling but it's not an excuse to use the flat Earth society as that reason, when you can go on many science sites and talk about your stuff all day long and actually be agreed with and helped along, with very little to no resistance by so called lunatics who know nothing, like you believe people like us are.


My goal is to make people see this shit for what it is. I accept that people like you are so far gone as to be not worth the effort, so I just get you to parrot your shit.

I will always respond with my stuff because it gives genuine people that are not naive, a chance to actually see through the bullshit that you bought into by paying in full and then insuring it, plus buying the added extra's like  special cleaners.  ;D


You don't seem a bad person. You seem decent compared to some. You know what? You should try an experiment for yourself, without giving in to peer pressure.
The experiment: for one year out of your life, or even 6 month's. Try and look at alternative thoughts with a critical mind also pointed at your indoctrination and see where it takes you.

Don't attempt it if you believe that you need equations and maths to make you see a potential, because you lose before you start.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: JerkFace on July 01, 2015, 07:01:41 AM
1960's and a boson was thought of. A particle of some sort. The particles were thought not to have mass but them found to have mass
This caused trouble until this particle appeared...WHERE?

How was the mass of this particle measured and by what microscope was this particle seen?
Did they manage to keep this particle, like freezing it or something or is it more magical than this?

Go on, let's see what you got.

The particle is believed to exist wherever there is mass, but it was directly observed for the first time in the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland. The mass of very small particles is determined using very mathy equations you probably wouldn't be interested in. To put it simply, it is calculated using the particle's energy and its momentum. Like I said before, microscopes aren't used to look at sub-atomic particles. The particle was observed in the CMS and ATLAS experiments within the Large Hadron Collider. Here's a cimple rundown of how the detectors in the LHC work http://home.web.cern.ch/about/how-detector-works (http://home.web.cern.ch/about/how-detector-works).

Honestly I'm just googling these answers. If you really want to know these things, you can look these things up yourself on CERN's website. Also, you should go back up and read my previous post. I edited it and told the story of the Big Bang.
I'm well aware you're googling the answers. I'm well aware that you have no clue how in the hell all this stuff works.
I'm also aware that you are too proud to make yourself look anything but intelligent by admitting that you know very little  about the physics that you try to bestow on other's.

What the hell are you actually doing here. I mean, why come to a place to tell people who are sceptical of what you believe in and attempt to tell them what you believe in, whilst trying to get them to believe in it. What gain do you get?

It's as sad as hell because you're gaining nothing. You can argue that you're gaining more education on your physics by googling but it's not an excuse to use the flat Earth society as that reason, when you can go on many science sites and talk about your stuff all day long and actually be agreed with and helped along, with very little to no resistance by so called lunatics who know nothing, like you believe people like us are.


My goal is to make people see this shit for what it is. I accept that people like you are so far gone as to be not worth the effort, so I just get you to parrot your shit.

I will always respond with my stuff because it gives genuine people that are not naive, a chance to actually see through the bullshit that you bought into by paying in full and then insuring it, plus buying the added extra's like  special cleaners.  ;D


You don't seem a bad person. You seem decent compared to some. You know what? You should try an experiment for yourself, without giving in to peer pressure.
The experiment: for one year out of your life, or even 6 month's. Try and look at alternative thoughts with a critical mind also pointed at your indoctrination and see where it takes you.

Don't attempt it if you believe that you need equations and maths to make you see a potential, because you lose before you start.

You have  the symptoms common to a lot of conspiracy nutters,   a belief that everyone else has been misled somehow,  and you are smarter than everyone else to see through the conspiracy, so you are in possession of some secret knowledge which makes you feel somehow superior,  in your case the conspiracy has extended somehow to incorporate mathematics,  which is a peculiar conspiracy variant to say the least.   Maybe people lie,  but whether you understand it or not,  mathematics doesn't lie.   

Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 01, 2015, 07:58:17 AM
You have  the symptoms common to a lot of conspiracy nutters,   a belief that everyone else has been misled somehow,  and you are smarter than everyone else to see through the conspiracy, so you are in possession of some secret knowledge which makes you feel somehow superior,  in your case the conspiracy has extended somehow to incorporate mathematics,  which is a peculiar conspiracy variant to say the least.   Maybe people lie,  but whether you understand it or not,  mathematics doesn't lie.
A psychologist now are we?  ;D

Mathematics doesn't lie you say. Mathematics can't lie on their own. It's like having a till and taking payment for goods. You can change what you want for the goods and type in a totally different price. It's not the mathematics that's lying; you're right there, but the people who plug in the figures are cheating those who are oblivious to what those figures should work out at, especially if nothing is price tagged.

It seems that the boson and string theory and a lot of other crap is not price tagged but you people keep ringing it all in and coming up with a price.
Can't blame the till, so where does the blame lie?

Yep; math's don;t lie but people are shit hot at it.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: The Ellimist on July 01, 2015, 11:41:16 AM
Don't think I didn't see that post you just made, sceptimatic. Looks like you got the smack down from the moderators for explicit content.

To answer your questions
1. Fred and Martha could calculate their distance from Bobby as long as they know the distance between each other and could see Bobby. They would just need a protractor and a calculator.

2. Oh yeah, baby  ;)
So they can calculate the distance as long as they know the distance. That's a bit silly isn't it.

Can you explain it a bit clearer so we can tell how wide the road is from Bobby's point of view.

Fred and Martha could calculate the distance between Fred and Bobbdy and they could calculate the distance between Martha and Bobby as long if they knew the distance between Fred and Martha.

Bobby could calculate the distance between Bobby and Fred and he could calculate the distance between Bobby and Martha as long as he could move along the road.

Let's do an example problem, math is fun!

Let's say that Bobby is looking at Martha and that both Martha and Bobby are standing on the edge of the road. Bobby walks along the road such that Martha is directly in front of him and in the center of his field of view. Now, Bobby moves 5 meters to the right, still facing forward. He pulls out his protractor and find that the angle between the center of his field of view and Martha is 5 degrees.

He then pulls out his calculator and does the following calculations:

http://i.imgur.com/guNIbDb.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/guNIbDb.jpg)

and he finds that the road is 57.253 meters across.

The actual distance would be closer to 57.150 meters, but Bobby had to round some numbers to make the math easier to represent on paper.
Where'd you get 85 degrees from?
Scepti gave it, saying it was 5 degrees off of when they were at 90 degrees.  and you cannot have an angle of over 90 degrees in any triangle.
You sure about that?
(http://www.mathstips.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/obtuse-triangle.png)
though I'm sure you meant "right triangle"
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: The Ellimist on July 01, 2015, 11:54:32 AM
I absolutely do not need mathematics to see when bullshit is spouted.

1. An object which starts at rest and accelerates at 4m/s/s for 6 seconds will have traveled 64 meters by the end of the 6 seconds.
2. An object which starts at rest and accelerates at 6m/s/s for 4 seconds will have traveled 72 meters by the end of the 4 seconds.
3. An object which starts at rest and accelerates at 12m/s/s for 3 seconds will have traveled 54 meters by the end of the 3 second.

Without using any mathematics, tell me which of the above statements is bullshit:
A. 1
B. 1 and 2
C. 2 and 3
D. 3
E. all of the above
It's E right?

EDIT: It's B
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Mikey T. on July 01, 2015, 12:47:50 PM
Yes, you are correct, I meant any right triangle. TY for the correction.
Title: Re: An unbiased debate.
Post by: Poko on July 01, 2015, 03:44:44 PM
I absolutely do not need mathematics to see when bullshit is spouted.

1. An object which starts at rest and accelerates at 4m/s/s for 6 seconds will have traveled 64 meters by the end of the 6 seconds.
2. An object which starts at rest and accelerates at 6m/s/s for 4 seconds will have traveled 72 meters by the end of the 4 seconds.
3. An object which starts at rest and accelerates at 12m/s/s for 3 seconds will have traveled 54 meters by the end of the 3 second.

Without using any mathematics, tell me which of the above statements is bullshit:
A. 1
B. 1 and 2
C. 2 and 3
D. 3
E. all of the above
It's E right?

EDIT: It's B

B is correct. Good job.