Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - MicroBeta

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 82
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« on: January 28, 2022, 08:05:06 AM »
Here's I have a challenge that is impossible for any flat earthers to solve impossible challenge for fe, no flat earther I have challenged (and I have challenged many) has been able to answer this.
You have 2 locations, A and B, x miles apart. The sun is directly above A. Provide an accurate formula that is constitent with observed reality for calculating how many degrees above the horizon the sun will appear at B.

If flat earth was true, doing this would be easy.
And yet no Flat earther has ever been able to do so.
To me, this is yet more proof that the earth is a sphere.
The problem is you would need a working map of the flat earth first.  It doesn't exist.  Į\_(ツ)_/Į

2
Yes, it is possible.  School children get high altitude balloon kits and send them up all the time.  The everyday person can do the same thing.  And, that person would control what cameras/lenses, sensors, etc. are used. 

The resulting images would be definitive. 

Mike

I donít think that kind of evidence would cut any ice around here.

What is being discussed is an experiment that proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that the earth was a globe.

Photographs, videos etc are, according to those that think they know better, not sufficient.

To remind everyone itís all to do with someone without recourse to expert help or assistance( past present or system) conduct an experiment to produce the solid evidence required.

So far no one has been able to come up with anything that disproves that statement. There are those who claim to know of such an experiment but refuse to divulge the details.
My point was that flat earthers should run this test.  They would get to choose all the equipment used so they can't dismiss the images/videos.  The findings would be definitive and not produced by non-flat earthers.

With the amount of money FECore has spent on their experiments (with no definitive results) they could have sent up a high altitude balloon with very high quality imaging equipment (digital and film) using rectilinear lenses and put it bed once and for all.

Mike

3
Yes, it is possible.  School children get high altitude balloon kits and send them up all the time.  The everyday person can do the same thing.  And, that person would control what cameras/lenses, sensors, etc. are used. 

The resulting images would be definitive. 

Mike

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature
« on: December 19, 2021, 12:05:47 PM »
Water not only curves but that curvature is measured and accounted for in engineering design and construction.

Ship hull model testing basins can be so long that the rails that the tow carriages ride on have to be curved to maintain a constant distance from the surface of the water.

Yup, curvature of water measured and accounted for in real world applications.


5
Okay, I wanna give away another one point for Jack, C&C, Microbeta and co.

But remember, for overall score, phew is still much leading  ;D
But, my video proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that phew could not possibly be correct....so, there's that.

Mike

6
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: May 15, 2021, 03:29:40 AM »

Are you really saying there's no law applying to a constant velocity?
Yes, there's no natural law, that's what I'm saying.


Quote from: MicroBeta
To quote Newton directly:
  • The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting, by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to persevere in its present state, whether it be of rest, or of moving uniformly forward in a right line."
IOW, he said, in part, an object in motion will remain in motion at a constant velocity, in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force.

Mike
And I'll say it again.
An object in motion will never remain in motion at any constant velocity if no force is acted upon it.
Without force you have no motion.
With force you cannot have constant velocity. It cannot happen in any scenario.
Wow.  You really don't know what that means do you?  Of course, a force would have to be applied to the object to start it moving. 

It literally says an object at rest need a force to start moving.  However, once an object is moving, another force is required to change it's direction or stop it.

Nowhere does it say or imply that an object can move on its own...to reiterate, it literally says an object at rest need a force to start moving. 

You demonstrated you do not understand what the laws of motion mean.

Mike
If  a force is needed to move the object then there will always be a force against that object. It will never move with force...ever.

The laws of motion do not count on this argument of yours, no matter how much you try to dress it up.
This is a fairy story.
You just proved me right.  You don't have the first clue what the 1st law of motion means.  Clearly any claims you make based on that incorrect understanding are themselves incorrect.

7
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: May 14, 2021, 02:55:22 PM »

Are you really saying there's no law applying to a constant velocity?
Yes, there's no natural law, that's what I'm saying.


Quote from: MicroBeta
To quote Newton directly:
  • The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting, by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to persevere in its present state, whether it be of rest, or of moving uniformly forward in a right line."
IOW, he said, in part, an object in motion will remain in motion at a constant velocity, in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force.

Mike
And I'll say it again.
An object in motion will never remain in motion at any constant velocity if no force is acted upon it.
Without force you have no motion.
With force you cannot have constant velocity. It cannot happen in any scenario.
Wow.  You really don't know what that means do you?  Of course, a force would have to be applied to the object to start it moving. 

It literally says an object at rest need a force to start moving.  However, once an object is moving, another force is required to change it's direction or stop it.

Nowhere does it say or imply that an object can move on its own...to reiterate, it literally says an object at rest need a force to start moving. 

You demonstrated you do not understand what the laws of motion mean.

Mike

8
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: May 12, 2021, 01:05:28 PM »
Explain this, what law of physics does this break?
It depends on what you deem as, a law of physics.
If you think a group of people decide the law then that law can be made to cater for anything and everything, whether it's a truth of a fiction/fantasy.
We don't get to decide what the laws of physics are.  They are immutable.  IOW, you can't just redefine something to suit you narrative.

Mike
Correct.
Now you need to understand that and apply it to something that cannot be done, which is constant velocity,
It does not exist so isn't obviously any law of physics.
Are you really saying there's no law applying to a constant velocity?

To quote Newton directly:
  • The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting, by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to persevere in its present state, whether it be of rest, or of moving uniformly forward in a right line."
IOW, he said, in part, an object in motion will remain in motion at a constant velocity, in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force.

Mike

9
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: May 12, 2021, 06:13:39 AM »
Explain this, what law of physics does this break?
It depends on what you deem as, a law of physics.
If you think a group of people decide the law then that law can be made to cater for anything and everything, whether it's a truth of a fiction/fantasy.
We don't get to decide what the laws of physics are.  They are immutable.  IOW, you can't just redefine something to suit you narrative.

Mike

10
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: May 05, 2021, 07:03:42 AM »

On a side note:  Let me be clear on one thing.  I will never, and nobody should ever have to, reanalyze, reperform, rehash, or otherwise justify peer reviewed, properly published, and accepted research.  It stands on its own merit.  That is literally the whole point of the peer review process.  Once presented the burden is on you; not me and all your handwaving word salad isnít going to change that.

I believe you do need to justify peer reviewed data if you're going to hand it out as  being a purveyor of facts.
Otherwise you're just arguing by simple appeals to your believed authority.
What part about peer reviewed stands on it's own merit don't you understand? 

Let me help you out.  Peer reviewed literally, and literally is not an exaggeration here, ...literally means it has already been justified to the peers in that field and accepted by the discipline as a whole. 

So, unless you are an accepted expert in that field you are not entitled to any further justification than that.  And, if you were an expert in that field you would take your concerns the authors of that paper.  No matter how much you want it to conform to your personal whims, that is how science works.  IOW, you don't get to make your own rules and expect everyone to follow them.

And, let me explain how burden works.  When something stands on it's own merit, in order to shift the burden you MUST have a reasonable testable counter argument.  That does NOT mean asking for justification for what has already been justified.

11
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: May 05, 2021, 06:45:51 AM »

Accept, refute, ignore...those are your only options.

Mike
Don't  forget the 4th one.

QUESTION.
Of course, you can question the data.  I expect you to question the data otherwise what's the point of the discussion?   

As I said, peer reviewed, published data stands on it's own merit so if have a question about something specific ask and if I can, I'll reply.  If I can't answer I'll tell you.  However, asking me to explain hundreds of pages to you is not questioning the data.  That's laziness on your part which also fits you scripted narrative of discrediting the person not the argument.

12
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: May 05, 2021, 03:32:47 AM »
Quote from: JackBlack
Quote from: JackBlack
Why do 2 objects of the same volume but different mass behave so differently?
Also give me an example of this one so, again, we know we are on the same page.
A solid 1 lead sphere vs a hollow paper sphere, where the radius of the 2 spheres are equal.
For a less dramatic comparison you could replace the paper sphere with a balsawood sphere.
Then you have totally different masses and totally different volumes.
And, you cannot provide anything close to a verifiable technical rationale to support this nonsense.

Mike

13
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: May 05, 2021, 03:14:53 AM »
Two questions.

1. Do you believe the so called peer reviewed stuff and why?

2. Can you stand up and claim any of them as fact, if you were in a law court?
1.  It's not "so called peer reviewed stuff".  It's testable and repeatable...you know, actual science.  And, I don't believe it.  I know it to be a fact.
If you know it to be a fact then you can explain how you proved it to be so....right?




Quote from: MicroBeta

2.  I won't have to so the question is irrelevant.
Correct, you don't have to prove it in a law court...but if you were subpoenaed to give proof of what you claim as fact, could you do it and if so, how..... and if not, why?

Quote from: MicroBeta

Not, stop Strawmaning the shit out of the...or is is an Avoiding The Issue logical fallacy.  I'm honestly not sure which applies but one thing's for sure...you're obfuscating.
Nahhh, I'm not obfuscating. What I am doing is putting you in a corner and you are trying to find a way of getting out of it.
Let's do it this way. 

These studies provides all the conditions, assumptions, equipment used, data collected, analysis techniques used, summary of results, conclusions, and citations to the sources for information/data used.

With everything you need already contained in the information that you asked for, why is the onus now on me to break it down for you?

Mike
The onus isn't on you to break it down.
I asked you two simple questions.

1. Do you believe the so called peer reviewed stuff and why?

You answer was: 1. It's not "so called peer reviewed stuff".  It's testable and repeatable...you know, actual science.  And, I don't believe it.  I know it to be a fact.
I then asked you: If you know it to be a fact then you can explain how you proved it to be so....right?



2. Can you stand up and claim any of them as fact, if you were in a law court?

You answered: 2.  I won't have to so the question is irrelevant.


I then went on to say:
Correct, you don't have to prove it in a law court...but if you were subpoenaed to give proof of what you claim as fact, could you do it and if so, how..... and if not, why?




So. basically you can refuse to answer and refuse to prove what you know to be factual but then again it just sets you right back into a corner where you cannot reason your way out of.


You don't know any facts.
What you do know is, you rely on papers that claim facts and accept them as your facts, without physical proof and absolutely without the ability to put anything in front of anyone to show your side to be correct.

If you want to argue that you are stating facts and you could supply those facts to a court of law, if asked to do so, then surely you would be only too happy to lay them out on here and shut me up.....right?
Yes.  I do refuse and I'll tell you why.  One of your most well-known tactics is comments similar to "you don't know", "you just believe", ďyou havenít done it yourselfĒ; usually followed by some form of ďyou only have faith without evidenceĒ kind of statement. 

The whole goal here is to discredit the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.  It's called an Appeal to Accomplishment logical fallacy.  And, it is your primary go to reply in every single discussion.  Your scripted narrative is designed to NEVER address any argument presented.  You always make it about the person making the argument and never, ever the argument itself.  I refuse to play your game.

The simple fact is, when I brought up peer reviewed published research you said "Name one.".  I named 7 and provided links to the sources for all of them.  I literally answered the question you asked and proved that such peer reviewed data exists.  But rather than concede it exists, you jump right into your script.

Hereís the thing though.  In a court of law, peer reviewed, published data like this would be considered prima facie evidence.  You canít allow that because you know you have no answers for any of it.  Hereís a clue for you...your personal incredulity is not a valid argument. 

So, your only options to accept the data, refute the data, or ignore the data...and everyone reading this knows which youíll do.  Rejecting it because you donít believe is on you but donít put the burden on me to justify your Argument From Incredulity because itís not going to happen. 

On a side note:  Let me be clear on one thing.  I will never, and nobody should ever have to, reanalyze, reperform, rehash, or otherwise justify peer reviewed, properly published, and accepted research.  It stands on its own merit.  That is literally the whole point of the peer review process.  Once presented the burden is on you; not me and all your handwaving word salad isnít going to change that.

Accept, refute, ignore...those are your only options.

Mike

14
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: May 03, 2021, 05:17:36 AM »
Two questions.

1. Do you believe the so called peer reviewed stuff and why?

2. Can you stand up and claim any of them as fact, if you were in a law court?
1.  It's not "so called peer reviewed stuff".  It's testable and repeatable...you know, actual science.  And, I don't believe it.  I know it to be a fact.
If you know it to be a fact then you can explain how you proved it to be so....right?




Quote from: MicroBeta

2.  I won't have to so the question is irrelevant.
Correct, you don't have to prove it in a law court...but if you were subpoenaed to give proof of what you claim as fact, could you do it and if so, how..... and if not, why?

Quote from: MicroBeta

Not, stop Strawmaning the shit out of the...or is is an Avoiding The Issue logical fallacy.  I'm honestly not sure which applies but one thing's for sure...you're obfuscating.
Nahhh, I'm not obfuscating. What I am doing is putting you in a corner and you are trying to find a way of getting out of it.
Let's do it this way. 

These studies provides all the conditions, assumptions, equipment used, data collected, analysis techniques used, summary of results, conclusions, and citations to the sources for information/data used.

With everything you need already contained in the information that you asked for, why is the onus now on me to break it down for you?

Mike

15
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: May 03, 2021, 04:20:36 AM »

Shifting of the Burden of Proof much?

You asked for peer reviewed, published data.  Now, the burden is on you accept it or refute it.  What you can't do is imply an appeal to authority and demand I reiterated what I've already provided.  That is an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy.

Mike
I certainly don't accept it and I cannot refute what's not physically in my face that supposedly shows fact.

It comes down to you proving what is set out so you can show me you are right and I am not.
Can you do this instead of nah nah nee nah nah-ing?
Let me get this straight.  You want me to breakdown and explain the peer reviewed, published data because you too bleepin' lazy to read them yourself and do your own research?  Really?

Sorry but you don't get to ask me to give you something and then require me to explain it all to you.  You asked for it and it's up to you to evaluate it; not me to do it for you.

Mike
Calm down. You can obviously do as you please...but, if you expect me to believe something then provide the proof for me to do that.
If you're not interested in proving anything then don't give me the time of day.
I don't expect you to believe anything.  I expect you will do your own work.  I expect you to read data presented, as you requested BTW, and do you own research.  I said there was peer reviewed data, you said "name one", and I did.  Read it, don't read it, ignore it; whatever.  However, stop trying to shift the burden.

Mike
Two questions.

1. Do you believe the so called peer reviewed stuff and why?

2. Can you stand up and claim any of them as fact, if you were in a law court?
1.  It's not "so called peer reviewed stuff".  It's testable and repeatable...you know, actual science.  In science this is the highest level of evidence.  If you won't accept that fact then this is not worth discussing.  And, I don't believe it.  I know it to be a fact.

2.  I won't have to so the question is irrelevant.

Not, stop Strawmaning the shit out of the...or is is an Avoiding The Issue logical fallacy.  I'm honestly not sure which applies but one thing's for sure...you're obfuscating. 

16
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: May 03, 2021, 02:59:34 AM »

Shifting of the Burden of Proof much?

You asked for peer reviewed, published data.  Now, the burden is on you accept it or refute it.  What you can't do is imply an appeal to authority and demand I reiterated what I've already provided.  That is an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy.

Mike
I certainly don't accept it and I cannot refute what's not physically in my face that supposedly shows fact.

It comes down to you proving what is set out so you can show me you are right and I am not.
Can you do this instead of nah nah nee nah nah-ing?
Let me get this straight.  You want me to breakdown and explain the peer reviewed, published data because you too bleepin' lazy to read them yourself and do your own research?  Really?

Sorry but you don't get to ask me to give you something and then require me to explain it all to you.  You asked for it and it's up to you to evaluate it; not me to do it for you.

Mike
Calm down. You can obviously do as you please...but, if you expect me to believe something then provide the proof for me to do that.
If you're not interested in proving anything then don't give me the time of day.
I don't expect you to believe anything.  I expect you will do your own work.  I expect you to read data presented, as you requested BTW, and do you own research.  I said there was peer reviewed data, you said "name one", and I did.  Read it, don't read it, ignore it; whatever.  However, stop trying to shift the burden.

Mike

17
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: May 03, 2021, 02:18:36 AM »

Shifting of the Burden of Proof much?

You asked for peer reviewed, published data.  Now, the burden is on you accept it or refute it.  What you can't do is imply an appeal to authority and demand I reiterated what I've already provided.  That is an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy.

Mike
I certainly don't accept it and I cannot refute what's not physically in my face that supposedly shows fact.

It comes down to you proving what is set out so you can show me you are right and I am not.
Can you do this instead of nah nah nee nah nah-ing?
Let me get this straight.  You want me to breakdown and explain the peer reviewed, published data because you too bleepin' lazy to read them yourself and do your own research?  Really?

Sorry but you don't get to ask me to give you something and then require me to explain it all to you.  You asked for it and it's up to you to evaluate it; not me to do it for you.

Mike

18
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: May 02, 2021, 05:55:15 AM »
Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.
No, that is your denp nonsense.
Gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.


No, it hasn't.
<snip>
Why?  Because you say so?  It is a stone-cold fact that there are literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed data that has never been refuted.  Your inability to comprehend it doesn't make it fake.

Mike
Name one.
I could provide you a dozen if you'd like.  I start with just a few. 

This first one is titled "Experimental Tests of Gravitational Theory".  It provides a description of each experiment, the analytical solution, and citations to the peer reviewed, published source.  All the equipment, methodologies, test procedures, results, and conclusions are there for your review and verification.

https://pdg.lbl.gov/2019/reviews/rpp2018-rev-gravity-tests.pdf
Any chance you can explain this nice and simple for me, so it gives me no argument against your knowing on it as fact?

Or at least tell me how a few peers managed to accept it as fact that said to you, 'yep, it's fact.'
No I won't.  You asked for peer reviewed published data and I gave it to you.  It is up to you to refute it.

This is data produce using the scientific method.  The results were reviewed, published, and verified over and over again.

These papers have not only passed peer review; they've also been accepted by the peers in the applicable disciplines. 

It doesn't get any more authoritative than this.  To then say I need to have interviewed and gotten concurrence from the authors/reviewers is disingenuous. You are moving the goal posts...literally an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy. 

You asked for the data and I provided it.  The ball is in your court to debunk it.

Mike
I don't need to refute it. You cannot prove it. You are simply reliant on what it says, as your truth but you know fine well you cannot stand there and hand it out as truth from your own workings because you've never tested any of it out to prove anything.


You can't debunk fantasy you can just claim it to be fantasy.
You can argue for it being real but your real and fantasy are indistinguishable if you can't back it up yourself.
Shifting of the Burden of Proof much?

You asked for peer reviewed, published data.  Now, the burden is on you accept it or refute it.  What you can't do is imply an appeal to authority and demand I reiterated what I've already provided.  That is an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy.

Mike

19
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: May 01, 2021, 10:04:55 AM »
Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.
No, that is your denp nonsense.
Gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.


No, it hasn't.
<snip>
Why?  Because you say so?  It is a stone-cold fact that there are literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed data that has never been refuted.  Your inability to comprehend it doesn't make it fake.

Mike
Name one.
I could provide you a dozen if you'd like.  I start with just a few. 

This first one is titled "Experimental Tests of Gravitational Theory".  It provides a description of each experiment, the analytical solution, and citations to the peer reviewed, published source.  All the equipment, methodologies, test procedures, results, and conclusions are there for your review and verification.

https://pdg.lbl.gov/2019/reviews/rpp2018-rev-gravity-tests.pdf
Any chance you can explain this nice and simple for me, so it gives me no argument against your knowing on it as fact?

Or at least tell me how a few peers managed to accept it as fact that said to you, 'yep, it's fact.'
No I won't.  You asked for peer reviewed published data and I gave it to you.  It is up to you to refute it.

This is data produce using the scientific method.  The results were reviewed, published, and verified over and over again.

These papers have not only passed peer review; they've also been accepted by the peers in the applicable disciplines. 

It doesn't get any more authoritative than this.  To then say I need to have interviewed and gotten concurrence from the authors/reviewers is disingenuous. You are moving the goal posts...literally an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy. 

You asked for the data and I provided it.  The ball is in your court to debunk it.

Mike

20
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: April 30, 2021, 08:59:28 PM »
Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.
No, that is your denp nonsense.
Gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.


No, it hasn't.
<snip>
Why?  Because you say so?  It is a stone-cold fact that there are literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed data that has never been refuted.  Your inability to comprehend it doesn't make it fake.

Mike
Name one.
I could provide you a dozen if you'd like.  I start with just a few. 

This first one is titled "Experimental Tests of Gravitational Theory".  It provides a description of each experiment, the analytical solution, and citations to the peer reviewed, published source.  All the equipment, methodologies, test procedures, results, and conclusions are there for your review and verification.

https://pdg.lbl.gov/2019/reviews/rpp2018-rev-gravity-tests.pdf

Here are a few more.  All peer reviewed.  When you're done with they I have more for you.  Or, you can learn to do your own research because data like this is easily available.

Infrasound and gravity waves over the Andes observed by a pressure sensor on board a stratospheric balloon
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1605726

Black Holes and Other Clues to the Quantum Structure of Gravity
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4434/9/1/16

General approach to the Lagrangian ambiguity in f(R, T) gravity
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-08920-4.pdf

Topics in soft collinear effective theory for gravity
https://journals.aps.org/prd/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.066019

Probing gravity and growth of structure with gravitational waves and galaxiesí peculiar velocity
https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/2020/pub/fermilab-pub-20-185-ae.pdf

Convectively Forced Diurnal Gravity Waves in the Maritime Continent
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/77/3/jas-d-19-0236.1.xml

21
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: April 24, 2021, 06:33:06 AM »
Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.
No, that is your denp nonsense.
Gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.


No, it hasn't.
<snip>
Why?  Because you say so?  It is a stone-cold fact that there are literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed data that has never been refuted.  Your inability to comprehend it doesn't make it fake.

Mike

22
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: April 23, 2021, 08:20:09 AM »
Quote
All you have to do is to explain what gravity is
That is like explaining what time is.
Thatís not exactly true.  It is true that we donít know what the exact mechanism by which gravity causes masses to accelerate toward each other; space to warp.  However, how that mechanism operates is very well understood.  In fact, itís so well understood that its effects are quantifiable, measurable, and predictable and have been successfully tested over and over again.   

It is a stone-cold fact there is no other explanation for the observations we attribute to gravity that can say the same thing.

Mike

23
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: April 23, 2021, 05:45:34 AM »
Gravity is the most studied subject in the history of physics.  Since 1915 alone there is literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed, published data.  Debating isn't going to change that...nobody has debunked any of the published data.
Nobody has debunked it because nobody would be allowed to.
<snip>
I'm sorry but that statement is nothing but a bullshit cop out.  A lame excuse to handwave away peer reviewed, published data without having to address any of it.

Claiming it doesn't exist in the face of volumes of peer reviewed data without evidence to support that claim is hypocritical.  If globe deniers are going to ask us to back up our claims then you should have to do the same.

Mike   

24
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: April 22, 2021, 08:52:40 AM »
Gravity is the most studied subject in the history of physics.  Since 1915 alone there is literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed, published data.  Debating isn't going to change that...nobody has debunked any of the published data.

25
@MicroBeta

Your experiment ain't so clear. The sphere is too small.
Other Youtube videos indicate the school's formula is wrong.
I laid everything out in my video.  I provided all the materials, equipment, dimensions, and the calculations used in every demonstration so everything can easily be replicated.  I took you're "6 radian experiment" and clearly explained how it was measured and calculated.  I even discussed the sources in error and why they weren't a issue for demonstrations I presented.  AAMOF, the demonstrations my video are much, much more accurate than any of the videos you've made on the subject.

So, exactly what isn't "so clear"?

You once offered to repeat your experiment? If so, I'm looking forward to seeing it
I don't remember ever offering to repeat my demonstrations but what is it you'd like to see repeated and what should be different and why?

For anyone interested, below is a link to the post with my video.  Does anyone think Danang is right?  It it unclear?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87399.msg2296592#msg2296592

Mike

26
Flat Earth General / Re: Flight from Anchorage to Helsinski = PHEW FE Map
« on: February 23, 2021, 02:27:51 AM »
By the globe assumption, Anchorage - Helsinski is supposedly only 6,512 km.

Reality of the flight route:
Anchorage - Seattle - Amsterdam - Helsinski, which equals 2309 km + 7825 km + 1517 km = 11,651 km. :o

Why choosing 11,651 km, instead of  6,512 km?  8)
Interesting but flight distances do not work on a flat map.  Otherwise, you'd be able to explain this.


27
Prove your formula with experiment.
Pi is okay, but what about your formulas??

Challenge: volume of sphere & cone. 👌
Seriously.  I did several spheres in the video and you know this.  Now you're just lying.

Mike

28
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: February 04, 2021, 05:08:52 AM »
Flat Earth is coming to schools???
Yeah free fall object has to do with flat earth + Downwards Universal Deceleration. 👌
Gravity is the most studied subject in history of physics.  There is literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed published data. 

Your inability to understand that hot air will rise regardless of what causes objects to fall changes none of peer reviewed data.  AAMOF, the very fact that hot air rises is not evidence for or against gravity and not evidence for or against universal acceleration.

Mike

29
Quote from: Danang
Why is it you still claim pi is wrong and that PHEW = 3.17157 and yet you still haven't refuted a single thing in my video?  I even did you 6 radian challenge.  I proved that pi is correct and phew was wrong. 

If you really believe your claim then why don't you reply to my demonstrations?  If you're right is should be a simple debunk...right?

Mike

30
Is trigonometry preseted into pi?
For a right triangle it's simple the ratio of the LENGTHS of the sides...just a simple ratio.  And, I proved it to you in my video.  Let it go already.

Mike
You're replying to a 2 month old post and you're telling Danang to let it go? ???
Fair enough.  However, the latest posts were within the two days of mine and the thread was near the top of the first page.  I didn't realize how old the actual thread was.

Mike

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 82