1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Seafloor Spreading??

« on: January 28, 2016, 04:07:14 PM »

Actually, you RE'ers have to use magic to explain 'gravity'.  See my signature.

Not at all. Moreover, the acceleration nonsense doesn't explain why gravity BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL OBJECTS is measurable. The gravitational constant also just happens to work perfectly for what we experience on earth.

See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-a-wire-was-used-to-measure-a-tiny-force-of-gravity/

The only magic is disbelief in something that's been proven for over 200 years.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?

« on: January 28, 2016, 12:13:31 PM »

We already know your statement, but you didn't answer the question...

This is absurd. Most GPS software will tell you the satellites that it's locked into. Then, you can head here:
http://www.calsky.com/?GPS=
Next, you can aim your telescope and see them for yourself. Sometimes, you can see them unaided, or with binoculars. Amateur satellite gazing is a major hobby. They move in very predictable orbits, and are easily observable. This is how GPS works. If someone thinks it works another way, they are playing ostrich.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The 3 big lies: atmosphere, gravity, refraction

« on: January 28, 2016, 11:01:53 AM »

We don't need no education, as flat earthers. You can figure things out by yourself. Education is brainwashing. We don't need no thought control.

Except, under that worldview, we'd have no: Computers, Airplanes, TV, Internet, Modern Medicine, Phones, Microwave Ovens, Nuclear Power Plants...

Every major technological advance has built upon the collective knowledge of generations past. Via... EDUCATION. Something about Shoulders of Giants ring a bell? I'm guessing not, education and whatnot.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The 3 big lies: atmosphere, gravity, refraction

« on: January 27, 2016, 11:43:15 PM »

  If you don't understand it, that's fine--to dismiss it because you don't understand it is foolhardy.

No...to go along with it for no otehr reason than to follow mass indoctrination is fool hardy - but safe in the knowledge that it gives a person the right to be called, sane.
[quote author=Xenos2112 link=topic=65610.msg1752716#msg1752716 date=1453891823

This is the crux of it. That false dichotomy. Scepti doesn't UNDERSTAND it, so he uses the "indoctrination" bugaboo as his Satan proxy. If elementary math is indoctrination, then it's a futile argument. It's like telling a religious person there is no God. They aren't coming from a position of INFORMED acuity, they are taking it on faith. Flat Earthers are, universally, obtuse. There is never a reasonable debate using logic, because they believe in magic; not empirical, accepted data. There is nothing elite about it - many of the world's greatest scientific minds are from poor, war-torn countries. ALL of the data (not most) conclusively has proven that the Earth is round. The ONLY way to argue that is with magic, or a profound misunderstanding of basic math and the scientific method. 

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Truth about Map Projections

« on: January 27, 2016, 11:10:32 PM »

Welcome to the trenches OP.

It really is more like trench warfare than I thought from reading that.  Holy crap.  All they seem to do so far is deflect, dodge questions, or call you a clone.

Here's a simple question to answer:  How is it, that over the past 100+ years, hundreds of thousands of people have been involved in this "hoax," yet not a single whistle-blower has stepped forward?  Particularly since the "Faked" space flights and whatnot?  Tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of scientists, astronauts, workers, private contractors, their families, friends, EVERYONE INVOLVED, and not a single one has stepped forward to blow the lid off this? 

Occam's Razor, man.  The more hoops you have to jump through to make it even PLAUSIBLE, the less likely it is to be true.

Like with this map situation.  They cannot provide a flat map that is not skewed using VERIFIABLE DATA of distances, landmass locations, etc..  Why?

I await an answer.

Regards,
~Xenos, more and more firmly in the Round Earth Camp Each Passing Thread

Yep! NASA must be employing THOUSANDS of people who do nothing but photoshop photographs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. The fact that there are now MILLIONS of photographs from the last half-decade plus, mean that the conspiracy is absolutely pervasive, yet NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON has ever set a foot forward. Not to mention that you can now purchase a low-earth orbit flight for Pleasure and see it for yourself (though, unsurprisingly, no wealthy Flat Earthers have done this...). It's IDIOCY.

Don't forget the doctored photos by hobby astronomers (or faulty photos because the lens of the telescope is convex and that's why things have curve--except, ya know, I don't remember my girlfriend having THAT kind of curvature, if ya know what I mean), and all the covered up and/or falsified evidence of circumpolar navigation, circumnavigation of the Antarctic, and the hundreds of scientists and tourists that are in Antarctica every YEAR.

When that many people are in on the conspiracy, there's NO CHANCE it wouldn't be blown out of the water.

Yet, I'm keeping an open mind about it, I'm just asking for them to use the Laws of Physics to show me it's flat.  Trig shows the world is ROUND.  Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, the Universal Law of Gravity...  They tend to throw all that out.

And really, while I get the self-centr--I mean GEOCENTRIC view of the Universe (it makes you feel special, safe under the sapphire dome of "firmament" protected from all the horrors beyond), I really do think it's time to step out of the cave and use some Science, not throw it out and say "Gravity don't exist in our model," or "That's not how we see it working."  That's great.  The Universe says otherwise.  Physics says otherwise.

Show me with physics.  Show me a NON SKEWED FLAT MAP.

What did they say on X-Files?  "I WANT to believe!" (Well, not so much want to believe, but want to see the Science--CONVINCE me)

Respect to all friends, Confusion to all enemies (that's a Col. Travis quote, his last correspondence from the Alamo),
~Xenos, a Strange Man in a Strange Land

"Don't forget the doctored photos by hobby astronomers (or faulty photos because the lens of the telescope is convex and that's why things have curve--except, ya know, I don't remember my girlfriend having THAT kind of curvature, if ya know what I mean), and all the covered up and/or falsified evidence of circumpolar navigation, circumnavigation of the Antarctic, a
and the hundreds of scientists and tourists that are in Antarctica every YEAR."

The convex telescope lens bit is HILARIOUS, I hadn't heard that one before. We should start a "send a flat earther to Antarctica" kickstarter. It's a win/win.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universal Accelerator - how it works?

« on: January 27, 2016, 10:58:01 PM »

Ok.  You can't read.

Nailed it; I clearly can't read.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Seafloor Spreading??

« on: January 27, 2016, 10:57:13 PM »

There is no force. When you jump, why are you weightless until you reach the ground?  Why is it that you only experience a force when you are in contact with the Earth (directly or otherwise)?

You could conclude that there is a force, but you would be wrong.

How do you ever get back to the ground?

If
a.) I am weightless while in the air
And
b.) there is no force acting on me

I should float. But I don't.

Stand on a chair. Take a step forward. If you move and directon other than forward, you just observed a force acting on you.

... which is a good thing, because the Earth would crash into helicopters and satellites otherwise. I think that the idea is that Earth is moving to "catch up" with people, they aren't actually falling. If that were true, helicopters would have to spin faster and faster as they slowed down relative to the Earth to keep an equilibrium, and satellites would simply be impossible. Which is unfortunate, because you can see many of them, unaided by even binoculars. 

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Seafloor Spreading??

« on: January 27, 2016, 10:43:49 PM »

Sorry, but it is absolutely true.  You only experience acceleration when you are in contact with the Earth (directly or otherwise).  When you jump, you become inertial (you enter a non accelerating frame of reference).  It's only after you reach the ground again that you are accelerated again.

Play Devil's Advocate. How would you go about disproving your statement. If you had to. What's the weakness there?

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universal Accelerator - how it works?

« on: January 27, 2016, 10:41:59 PM »

I guess you didn't read reply #244?  The very next one.

Keep guessing.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universal Accelerator - how it works?

« on: January 27, 2016, 10:37:58 PM »

What did I avoid?

Reply #243

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Truth about Map Projections

« on: January 27, 2016, 10:37:00 PM »

Welcome to the trenches OP.

It really is more like trench warfare than I thought from reading that.  Holy crap.  All they seem to do so far is deflect, dodge questions, or call you a clone.

Here's a simple question to answer:  How is it, that over the past 100+ years, hundreds of thousands of people have been involved in this "hoax," yet not a single whistle-blower has stepped forward?  Particularly since the "Faked" space flights and whatnot?  Tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of scientists, astronauts, workers, private contractors, their families, friends, EVERYONE INVOLVED, and not a single one has stepped forward to blow the lid off this? 

Occam's Razor, man.  The more hoops you have to jump through to make it even PLAUSIBLE, the less likely it is to be true.

Like with this map situation.  They cannot provide a flat map that is not skewed using VERIFIABLE DATA of distances, landmass locations, etc..  Why?

I await an answer.

Regards,
~Xenos, more and more firmly in the Round Earth Camp Each Passing Thread

Yep! NASA must be employing THOUSANDS of people who do nothing but photoshop photographs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. The fact that there are now MILLIONS of photographs from the last half-decade plus, mean that the conspiracy is absolutely pervasive, yet NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON has ever set a foot forward. Not to mention that you can now purchase a low-earth orbit flight for Pleasure and see it for yourself (though, unsurprisingly, no wealthy Flat Earthers have done this...). It's IDIOCY.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universal Accelerator - how it works?

« on: January 27, 2016, 10:30:55 PM »

On the contrary fine fellow. I never claimed Inertial means stopped.

In my example, the laboratory is the observer, he has no velocity, he is simply awaiting the disk to catch up.

Lol.  Want to try that again, Mr. Special Relativity?

How you can even assume Equivalence principal can even start to describe any observations or calculations on a FE model is quite frankly, absurd.

Only because you obviously don't understand it.

As you are aware, I have put forward some Questions to you in another thread, we can get as detailed as you like and prove one way or the other if UA works according to special relativity.

Oh, you mean the one you cowardly tried to derail in which you believe Special Relativity is false?  That one?  'Cause I'm still waiting on an answer over in that thread.

Debate over, You have proved yourself unfit/unwilling to answer, and lacking in knowledge.  I am not wasting any more of my time on your trolling and derailing. Mr. fraud.

Typical.  You can't stand by your own statements, so you run away.  Isn't that the cowardly thing to do? That thing you accused me of? 

Oh, and I am not the one lacking in knowledge, Mr. Special Relativity.  You are wrong.  I am right.  I would love to continue with this debate on Relativity, as it's one of my favorite subjects.  I would even be more than willing to help you see the light (pun intended). 

Maybe next time, don't get all uppity and claim to be so well educated that you are going to destroy someone's argument and call them a coward if they don't respond within seconds of you expecting them to.  That is a tact that uneducated RE'ers often use on this site.  It doesn't go well for them, as it has not gone well for you.

No, he's right, you've played an avoidance game, and badly at that.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Seafloor Spreading??

« on: January 27, 2016, 10:23:03 PM »

Why is it that you only experience a force when you are in contact with the Earth (directly or otherwise)?

This isn't even remotely true. The fact that you come down after you jump, for instance...

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What Is The Worst Flat Earth Fallacy ?

« on: July 22, 2015, 03:02:15 PM »

Thread bails?  I just posted in this thread 7 hours ago.  I am sorry that me having a job is such a hinderance to your participation in pointless debating. 

Fair enough. I'm trying to goad you into bailing less often (like with the distance of Everest thing...)

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How GPS works

« on: July 22, 2015, 01:29:27 PM »

Not to mention that you can simply observe satellites using a telescope (or the naked eye, depending on what you're looking for) and sat tracking site (http://www.n2yo.com/ for instance)

Since FE'ers aren't going to answer, I'll answer for them: they will say that they do not have a telescope and therefore cannot see them.

Do they not have eyeballs either? You can see some of them on a clear night unaided.

Edit: Here's how http://www.space.com/6870-spot-satellites.html - you can see the ISS with nothing but your eyeballs.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What Is The Worst Flat Earth Fallacy ?

« on: July 22, 2015, 01:23:16 PM »

[nb][/nb]

The flat Earth map makes Chile to New Zealand look at least twice as far as California to Japan, and yet both flights take about 12 hours. Hmmm....

You do realize that planes are capable of flying at different speeds, right?   

While that might be a convincing rebuttal to a four year old, in the real world it raises far more questions than it answers. Are airlines and airline pilots part of the conspiracy too? Why are airliners more worried about maintaining a gigantic "hoax" than they are about fuel costs and passenger convenience? Wouldn't competition drive airliners to keep flight times as low as possible to attract more passengers and sell more tickets?

Adding this to the docket of jroa thread-bails...

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How GPS works

« on: July 21, 2015, 03:52:00 PM »

Not to mention that you can simply observe satellites using a telescope (or the naked eye, depending on what you're looking for) and sat tracking site (http://www.n2yo.com/ for instance)

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: who needs a theory anyway?

« on: July 21, 2015, 02:07:56 PM »

Jroa is probably going to come out and say that mikeman's model is flawed because it doesn't allow for obstructions.
Okay, jroa, what about West Africa to New York City? Even making out the glow of the lights should be easy, right?

There is no air between West Africa and New York?

... You aren't allowed to move on yet. You stated that "secondly, on a round or flat Earth, Mt. Everest is much, much farther than 8000 miles."

Cede or lose credibility.

Edit: This is why these forums don't work. You can't have a discussion without any intellectual honesty, which means ceding a mathematical flaw when you make one. It taints your future arguments. If you are mistaken, learn from it, don't play ostrich. Science is incompatible with ego.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Nothing that keeps us on the ground.

« on: July 21, 2015, 02:03:46 PM »

Nice explanation for most part. It's such a shame you had to add gravity into it. Anyone with a brain SHOULD be able to see that gravity is not needed.

Won't work without gravity, so obvious,  even you should see that.

I'm going to point out and keep tally of each time a FEer abandons a thread when asked to provide, explain, or disprove a mathematical proposition. Here, it has been shown that the gravitational constant is required. Thread abandoned.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What Is The Worst Flat Earth Fallacy ?

« on: July 21, 2015, 01:52:08 PM »

I nominate the goldfish-like memory of most FEs, and the complete inability to ever follow math or logic to an actual conclusion. When shown to be mathematically incorrect, no FE in the history of FE ever cedes a point; rather, they simply vanish from the thread after declaring victory. It's like watching a chess match where one side yells checkmate three moves in, and walks away from the table, having never even played the game (or having a basic grasp of the rules of chess).

A more useful argument would be to find the lowest common denominator that everyone can agree on... and piece together a conclusion, step by step, with a logical argument at the points of contentions, until a consensus is raised on that individual point.

Rather than starting with the premise that the earth is round or flat, start with something small. See if you can agree on some basic geometry. I feel as though FEers rarely have progressed beyond basic arithmetic to even have the discussion, which is why they simply abandon the thread when basic trig is brought up.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: who needs a theory anyway?

« on: July 20, 2015, 08:25:35 PM »

Secondly, on a round or flat Earth, Mt. Everest is much, much farther than 8000 miles. 

Jroa just did a fantastic job of proving pax's point. Utah to Mt. Everest is 7625 miles. http://www.freemaptools.com/how-far-is-it-between.htm

Jroa- do yourself a favor and actually check your bs facts before you blindly assert them and then strut around like an arrogant pigeon.

So, because Mt. Everest IS infact about 8000 miles, Jroa concedes that Mikeman should be able to see Mt. Everest.

And again... he disappears from the thread, never to cede the profound error above. ~7600 is, in fact, not "much, much farther" than 8000, a point which will never be addressed. Wash, rinse, repeat.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: who needs a theory anyway?

« on: July 15, 2015, 11:17:35 AM »

Mount Everest would also be very small.  Do we need to have a math lesson on what the angular resolution of Everest would be on a flat Earth from Utah? 

Mount Everest is about 5.5 miles tall and using a flat Earth map I can estimate that I am probably about 8,000 miles away from it.  (I am using a flat Earth map not because I don't think it's a poor excuse for a map, it's because I am assuming that Earth is flat in this calculation)

I can now use basic trigonometry and come up with this equation: Tan^-1(5.5/8,000)

That gives me 0.04.  That doesn't seem like much, but the angular resolution of the human eye is about 0.07 degrees meaning that you would be able to see mount Everest with a pair of binoculars and with a decent telescope you should be able to make out it's shape.  So why can't I do that?

Just pointing out yet another example of jroa inserting himself, making a deeply flawed argument with a self-satisfied, smug punctuator ("do we need to have a math lesson"...), then actually being GIVEN a basic math lesson, only to disappear from the thread as though it never happened. Wash, rinse, repeat. 

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Geometric Disproof...

« on: July 14, 2015, 08:38:19 PM »

Hypocracy is a word that comes to mind.   

Dont you people ever run out of material?

Your posting history is a constant vomiting of these punctuations. Your smug, self-satisfied microphone dropping belies a nearly complete failure to grasp the content of the discussion. You jump from premise to premise, never really examining the content, rather, skirting about with non-answers to questions never asked. You ignore your own contradictions when pointed out; rather than ceding the occasional point (even when the point is base math), you simply... declare... a point in a match only existing in your own head.

Look, I know this is a forum for lunatics, devil's advocates, and masochists. But the inane, rude, and smug way you complete damn near every sentiment with some sort of personal jab serves only to highlight the incoherent babbling you somehow manage to not only post, but take pride in.

 

24

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Can't have progress without knowing astronomy

« on: August 05, 2013, 08:23:48 PM »

I dunno, batteries seem to be pretty suckish whilst everything else goes forward.

Nope, they're fantastic - we just keep building devices that are smaller and do more. If we had cell phones that looked the way they did in the 80s, we'd get weeks of talk time. Like the car analogy, they're far more efficient - they don't last any longer because they're doing 10 times as much, in a much smaller package.

Not as much as you'd think.
Batteries have gotten smaller in part because power requirements have decreased.  Not only that but the ONLY real battery tech improvement came when Lithium Ion batteries hit the market.  Before that it was NiCa all the way.

While there has been a plateau, energy density has been steadily climbing; there are a bevy of new battery technologies that double (or better) Li-ion, LiPo, and even Li-Air. They haven't reached mass commercialization yet, but the technology is there. 

25

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Can't have progress without knowing astronomy

« on: August 05, 2013, 08:15:29 AM »

I dunno, batteries seem to be pretty suckish whilst everything else goes forward.

Nope, they're fantastic - we just keep building devices that are smaller and do more. If we had cell phones that looked the way they did in the 80s, we'd get weeks of talk time. Like the car analogy, they're far more efficient - they don't last any longer because they're doing 10 times as much, in a much smaller package.

26

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Can't have progress without knowing astronomy

« on: August 04, 2013, 09:33:33 PM »

Your only concern is reading the majesty of your own sentences and defaming others clearly. Please prove that cars are less efficient at transporting people now than the early 1900s.

He is not talking about efficiency at transporting people.  He is discussing the efficiency at converting energy from one form to another.

•1908: Henry Ford introduces the Model T. The gasoline-powered car enjoys up to 21 miles per gallon (just six m.p.g. fewer than the average new vehicle sold today).

The model T got 21 mpg.  According to the quote, about half of modern cars do not get that good of gas mileage.

If that's what he meant then fair enough.

Efficiency doesn't work quite that way. You can't simply look at MPG and say that engines haven't become more efficient, because you aren't factoring in the power to weight ratio. The model T produces 20bhp at 60lb/hp. This isn't an efficient engine, it's an inefficient engine in a very light vehicle. Vehicles that have lower efficiencies do not have lower efficiencies because of technology, rather, consumers prefer cars that go faster than 45mph (max speed of a model T) - much, much, faster with superior acceleration in a more efficient (mathematically speaking) engine. The average curb weight of a mid size sedan (which the model T would compare to) is around 3500 pounds. This is nearly triple the weight of a model T. The average mileage of a 2013 car is 25mpg. At triple the curb weight, this is a MUCH more efficient engine.

The statement regarding efficiently converting energy is, on its face, absolutely and unequivocally false.

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Proof earth isn't flat! (All you troglodytes read)

« on: August 03, 2013, 08:33:02 PM »

Incorrect, the math and pictures are included in this thread. The buildings are not covered by water, this conclusively proves that the earth is not a sphere.

I suggest you buy some glasses then. There are buildings in the picture, several hundred feet tall, and yet you see only the very top. Only possible on a spherical earth. End of discussion.

I wish I could see the world through childlike eyes sometimes.  It would make life a lot simpler.  However, if you want to draw conclusions based on incorrect observations, then be my guest.

A suggestion: indicting someones' reasoning requires some reasoning of your own, not mere naysaying. Try it.

28

Flat Earth General / Re: RErs vs Thork game

« on: August 02, 2013, 06:31:43 PM »

It was the appropriate response to a silly comment.  I did refute his claim, I pointed out that it was nonsense, much like yours.

Sorry, you can't refute a claim when the text in reference isn't a claim, but a question instead.

That being said, I'm going back to ignoring you in the upper forums until you make a valid point in a relevant thread.  I recommend everyone else do the same, although to be clear that I'm not violating forum rule number ten, I have no authority over any of you.

Completely agree. Will do so as well.

Actually looking forward to Thork's reply on this as well as my own post on this thread - it's been the first interesting thread in a while.

29

Flat Earth General / Re: RErs vs Thork game

« on: August 02, 2013, 05:47:12 PM »

Thork, I live in a river valley with hills all around me.  What does looking out my window really tell me about the shape of the earth?

That the Earth is not round.

Hills are not flat where I live.

Which is also what you would expect to see on a flat Earth.  I am glad we can agree on this.

How does that differ from what I would expect to see on a round earth?

I am not entirely sure what you would expect to see given that the Earth is not round.

Then perhaps you should figure it out and stop derailing threads.

You are the one bringing up nonsense about hills. You are the one with a reputation for derailing. Perhaps you should follow your own advice.

The question was directed at Thork, not you.  After all, this is the RE'ers vs Thork game, not the RE'ers vs Junker game.

I felt the need to counter your nonsense in his absence.  I am glad you don't refute that your post was nonsense.  Now try to stay on topic.

Ahem... This started with the quote "Thork, I live in a river valley with hills all around me.  What does looking out my window really tell me about the shape of the earth?"

The reason was to refute the idea that what you see locally has any bearing on what exists globally. The answer, obviously, is that what you see outside your window has no bearing on the shape of the Earth. YOUR REPLY was nonsense, derailment, and had no bearing whatsoever on this discussion, as most of your replies do. He didn't "refute" you, because you didn't address anything salient, as per usual. YOU didn't refute anything in HIS claim. You simply inserted yourself and took a left turn, like always.

30

Flat Earth General / Re: RErs vs Thork game

« on: August 01, 2013, 08:18:00 PM »

Given the computational complexity of photo-realistic CG, how does the NASA conspiracy produce hundreds of thousands of perfectly faked photographs, videos, and (most importantly) live feeds. Keep in mind, the latest CG movies take on the order of 60 million render hours, and these movies need to make tens (or hundreds) of millions of dollars to be profitable. NASA gains no income from this better-than-ILM CG.

Related: Massive conspiracies crumble, how big of a conspiracy can continue without anyone ever coming forward?

Also: Why devote extremely scarce (NASA has been neutered by the government lately) resources to create incredibly expensive to manufacture mundane footage, which is always flawless.