31

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Evolution

« on: December 21, 2015, 11:43:19 AM »

Just a heads up Conker, "specie" is not the singular form of "species". "species" is the singular and plural.

32

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the world is a sphere

« on: December 21, 2015, 03:43:24 AM »

I think the building second from the left is Sears Tower and the building on the right is Trump Tower. Go nuts, I guess.

33

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Evolution

« on: December 21, 2015, 03:39:36 AM »

That article is really really bad. Come on Luke, I know you can do better than that. Just in the first few paragraphs there are factual errors and misrepresentations of what evolution actually is. A transitional species is not a cross between two species. A transitional species is just what we call a species that comes between two other species. Homo erectus is said to be the transitional species between modern man and ancient ape. That doesn't mean Homo erectus is a cross between humans and apes. It's a distinct species. In fact, if we did find a "dat" or a "crocoduck" fossil, that would be a massive blow to evolution. If a crocoduck fossil was ever recovered, I personally would stop believing in evolution. The supposed "gaps" in the fossil record are simply due to the fact that not every single thing gets fossilized. In fact, a very small percentage of things that die ever get fossilized.

34

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: sun and eyes

« on: December 21, 2015, 03:21:15 AM »

Take a stringline & two fixed points pull it tight & see if you can make the string line  convex.

Look, I am sorry, but neither I, nor anyone else has any idea what this "string line" is supposed to do!
Please tell us just why it should "convex" or not on any sort of earth?
How can we answer if we have no idea what you are talking about?

If you cant get a simple  stringline to convex  between two fixed points, it in fact concaves due to the weight of its mass  falling  to gravity .Then  how can you ever claim other matter is convexing.
Thats check mate game over , unless you can get the stringline to convex.

Spin an uncooked pizza crust on your hand and try to get the dough to be perfectly flat. No matter how hard you try, you will never get the dough to be flat, it will always be a little bit convex. That's checkmate game over, unless you can get the pizza dough to be flat.

Do you see why this type of reasoning fails?

35

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give me your top ten proofs for a flat earth

« on: December 21, 2015, 03:15:08 AM »

This is why people hate you
And don't try to say that you are just "calling it as it is" because your main tactic is to just accuse people of lying or misrepresenting you so that that becomes what the debate is about to totally derail the thread. I learned that firsthand.

People hate me?  Why are you people so full of hate?  It seems to me that you people are simply taking your hate out on me.

Oh yeah. And don't respond unless you have 10 reasons that prove the Earth is flat. That's what the thread is about.

Well, since you are incapable of doing research for yourself, I will do even better.  Here are 100 proofs that the Earth is not a Globe.  You are welcome.

First of all, the topic is about ten "proofs" of a flat Earth. None of your list of 100 are proofs, they are all either unfounded assertions or non-sequiters. Second, the topic says "your top ten proofs" not "somebody else's 100 proofs". Show us the 10 reasons for a flat Earth that you personally find most compelling.

You need  a good hard  kick in the kunt you patronizing phucken filthy slag . How about you give ten physical reasons that proves the earth is spherical & while your at it explain this shit being dumped in the air we breath ,the water we drink & the soil we grow our crops in . http://agenda21news.com/2015/04/chemtrail-pilot-blows-the-lid-off-operation-indigo-skyfold/ .

Having a bad day? It's alright, we all get upset some times. I'm not going to hold it against you.

1. Objects going past the horizon disappear from the bottom up. They don't shrink because they are getting farther away, they are going under the horizon line.
2. The moon and sun set under the horizon. If the Earth were a flat disc, this would mean that they are going underneath the disc.
3. You can change when sunrise and sunset occur simply by changing your altitude. Go to Dubai, watch the sunset, take an elevator to the top of Burj Khalifa, and watch the sunset again.
4. The sun is always up somewhere, meaning that the sun can't be under the disc. This presents a conflict with point 2.
5. The stars visible from the northern hemisphere are different from the stars visible from the southern hemisphere.
6. In the northern hemisphere, the stars appear to revolve around Polaris. In the southern hemisphere, stars appear to revolve around Sigma Octantis. On a flat Earth the stars would all appear to revolve around the same point.
7. Commercial tours to the South Pole are available starting from Punta Arenas, Chile, and Cape Town, South Africa. Start from Chile, have your friend start from South Africa, and you will both arrive at the same place. Bring a compass with you to ensure that your boat goes due south and you aren't being brought to a fake South Pole.
8. The International Space Station is visible from the ground. http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/ will tell you exactly when and where to look. You can even communicate with the station with a radio if you have the technological know-how.
9. Different points on the Earth have measurably different gravitational acceleration. This is to be expected since the Earth is not a perfect sphere and is spinning.
10. There are unaltered, non-composite photographs of the Earth from space which show its curvature.

Chemtrails are irrelevant. I could concede to you that chemtrails are real and that would have no impact on our discussion about the shape of the Earth.

36

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give me your top ten proofs for a flat earth

« on: December 21, 2015, 02:02:13 AM »

You know what? Just stop responding to jroa at this point. In the few days since I've returned I've literally never seen him add anything to the discussion, but I have seen him derail several threads. I'll respond once you want to discuss the topic rather than troll and derail.

37

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give me your top ten proofs for a flat earth

« on: December 21, 2015, 01:04:42 AM »

This is why people hate you
And don't try to say that you are just "calling it as it is" because your main tactic is to just accuse people of lying or misrepresenting you so that that becomes what the debate is about to totally derail the thread. I learned that firsthand.

People hate me?  Why are you people so full of hate?  It seems to me that you people are simply taking your hate out on me.

Oh yeah. And don't respond unless you have 10 reasons that prove the Earth is flat. That's what the thread is about.

Well, since you are incapable of doing research for yourself, I will do even better.  Here are 100 proofs that the Earth is not a Globe.  You are welcome.

First of all, the topic is about ten "proofs" of a flat Earth. None of your list of 100 are proofs, they are all either unfounded assertions or non-sequiters. Second, the topic says "your top ten proofs" not "somebody else's 100 proofs". Show us the 10 reasons for a flat Earth that you personally find most compelling.

38

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give me your top ten proofs for a flat earth

« on: December 20, 2015, 11:44:45 PM »

I'll give it a go just for fun.

1. The ground appears flat on small scales. I don't understand how circles work, therefore Earth is flat.
2. Some unnamed law of physics states that the surface of a liquid must be flat. A round Earth requires the surface of the oceans to be curved, therefore Earth is flat.
3. The Sun, Moon, and other celestial bodies look like two-dimensional circles. I don't understand perspective, therefore Earth is flat.
4. I don't understand what a composite image is, but it sounds like a NASA conspiracy, therefore Earth is flat.
5. I have never bothered to look for unaltered photographs of Earth, therefore Earth is flat.
6. I don't understand how gravity works and I have never heard of the Cavendish experiment, therefore Earth is flat.
7. Something about aether, therefore Earth is flat.
8. The concept of a non-aerodynamic object floating around the planet without falling seems ridiculous to me. I don't understand vacuum, therefore Earth is flat.
9. If the planet was round and spinning it would fling us all off. I have never actually done the math to verify this myself, but it sounds about right to me. I don't understand uniform circular motion, therefore Earth is flat.
10. You are a government shill, therefore Earth is flat.

QED.

39

Flat Earth General / Re: I am offering an explanation for each piece of "evidence" you have.

« on: December 20, 2015, 07:15:34 PM »

I like your name, QuantumVelocity. It seems to imply that we may one day discover an indivisible unit of time, like we have for distance. It seems almost hopeful for the future of science.

Like Luke said, welcome to the trenches. Don't expect any further explanation of a flat earther's question. That guy who claimed that water levels don't work on a ball Earth will NEVER elaborate his question. I will eat my hat if he does.

40

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: sun and eyes

« on: December 20, 2015, 07:10:46 PM »

[quoauthor=inquisitive link=topic=65164.msg1740652#msg1740652 date=1450649438]

I didnt  say we are using it to measure a curviture.  We were useing it to determine if  you could make it convex. I gather your answers was no.
Then please explain the special properties of a string line . That is magically defying all this other matter that you claim is convexing with weightlessness  mass.

How does a string relate to the shape of the planet? How does the fact that you can't make the string convex mean that the surface of the planet can't be convex?

Just answer the question .Then please explain the special properties of a string line . That is magically defying all this other matter that you claim is convexing with weightlessness  mass. Its your claim the earth is convexing not mine. Back up your claim

All about weight and tension. School physics, as you know.

You have still not answered the question.   please explain the special properties of a string line . That is magically defying all this other matter that you claim is convexing with weightlessness  mass. Its your claim the earth is convexing not mine. Back up your claim
[/quote]

A string doesn't have special properties. It is no different from any other matter. I honestly don't understand your question. Are you trying to say that the surface of the planet is like a string? I really don't know what you're asking.

41

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give me your top ten proofs for a flat earth

« on: December 20, 2015, 07:08:11 PM »

Looks flat. Is flat.

42

Flat Earth General / Re: Wow.

« on: December 20, 2015, 06:56:37 PM »

I'd like to provide an explanation for the falling slinky if I may. A slinky is a type of spring, and so it is subject to Hooke's law, which basically states that the force needed to compress or stretch a string by some distance is proportional to that distance. Basically, stretching a spring twice as far takes twice the force. When you take a slinky hang, initially the downward force by gravity is greater than the upward force by the slinky, so it stretches. The slinky will continue to stretch until the upward force by the slinky matches the downward force by gravity. The top of the slinky is being pulled downward by the rest of the slinky, as well as gravity, but it is being held in place by the man so it doesn't move. When the man lets go, the top of the slinky is being pulled by the rest of the slinky and by gravity, so it moves down, but the bottom of the slinky is still being pulled up by the rest of the slinky, so it stays in place initially. As the slinky unstretches (is that a word), the upward force on the bottom of the slinky by the top decreases, so it begins to move downward. You can see in the gif that the bottom of the slinky does start to move before the top of the slinky reaches it.

Does that make sense? Please let me know if that doesn't make sense.

43

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: sun and eyes

« on: December 20, 2015, 01:43:29 PM »

I didnt  say we are using it to measure a curviture.  We were useing it to determine if  you could make it convex. I gather your answers was no.
Then please explain the special properties of a string line . That is magically defying all this other matter that you claim is convexing with weightlessness  mass.

How does a string relate to the shape of the planet? How does the fact that you can't make the string convex mean that the surface of the planet can't be convex?

44

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Moon observations

« on: December 20, 2015, 12:18:35 PM »

I can give you a more exact explanation if you want. It's really just about geometry.

As long as you don't have any equations!  I tried that a couple of times.

If you want the short answer, standing on opposite sides of the planet will only make the moon appear to turn about 1.9 degrees.

45

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Moon observations

« on: December 19, 2015, 11:52:31 PM »

Decay, I think I understand your question. The answer is that the moon is so far away you would barely see any difference even on opposite sides of the planet. Instead of imagining the tennis ball hanging from the ceiling of a building, imagine it hanging 1,000 feet in the air. Move 5 feet over and you won't see much of a difference simply because of how far away the ball is.

I can give you a more exact explanation if you want. It's really just about geometry.

46

Flat Earth General / Re: Why do astronauts on board ISS float around

« on: December 19, 2015, 11:39:32 PM »

Yendor, the airplane stays in the air because it has engines to provide thrust and wings to provide lift. If you shut down the engines and remove the wings from the plane, the passengers will enter free fall and start to float. The reason the plane falls back to the ground but the satellite doesn't is because of their speed and altitude.

Just for fun, we can calculate the required speed for a circular orbit at any given altitude. We can use the formula a = v²/r where a is acceleration in m/s², v is speed in m/s, and r is distance from the center of the Earth in m. Gravitation acceleration is given by the formula GM/r² where G is the gravitational constant (6.674 x 10^-11, M is the mass of the Earth (5.972 x 10²⁴ kg, and r is the distance to the center of the Earth. The radius of the Earth is 6.371 X 10⁶ m, so we need to add that to our altitude to find the distance to the center.

Let's try with a typical airplane. A typical airplane flies at about 10,000 meters above the ground. Add that to the radius of the Earth, and we get 6,381,000 m. That gives us a gravitational acceleration of 9.79 m/s². Plug that into our circular motion equation and we get 9.79 = v²/6381000. Solve for v and we get 7903.3 m/s, several times faster than any airplane has ever flown. We can see that a conventional aircraft is simply incapable of achieving a circular orbit at typical altitudes. Before you say "what about non-circular orbits", the speed required for an elliptical orbit would actually be greater than a circular orbit, assuming you want the lowest point in the orbit to be above the ground.

47

Flat Earth General / Re: Why do astronauts on board ISS float around

« on: December 19, 2015, 05:52:43 AM »

The ISS simply has enough lateral motion that the ground falls away aat the same rate as the ISS falls towards the earth.

This is why you lot really shouldn't try to explain things in a simple manner.

Because it always shows what complete garbage you are pushing.

Stick to spamming 'science-like language' & authoritative-looking equations in future.

Plus: LOL!!!

Alright Papa, here's an example that might clear things up. When a ball hangs by a string, the string is acting on the ball with an upward force. This force is called tension. Imagine the ball being swung in a circle (let's say it's on a frictionless table just to rule out any vertical forces). The ball is being pulled towards the center of the circle by the tension from the string. Side note: you can calculate exactly how strong this force is with the formula F = mv²/r where F is the tension force in Newtons, m is the mass of the ball in kilograms, v is speed of the ball in meters per second, and r is the length of the string in meters. So, if the ball is constantly being pulled towards the center, why doesn't it ever reach the center? Simply put, the ball is moving fast enough to "miss" the center. This is what people mean when they say objects in orbit "miss" the ground.

48

Flat Earth General / Re: Why do astronauts on board ISS float around

« on: December 19, 2015, 05:38:27 AM »

Even if a "geostationary" satellite were possible, it would orbit around that "point" (it's a path as Moon and Earth move in 3D) rather than around Earth.

I know I'm late but I just have to point this out. The center of mass of the Earth-Moon system is actually inside the Earth.

49

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round earthers beware

« on: December 19, 2015, 05:33:27 AM »

On the theoretical ball Earth where water is bent to the ball Earth's curvature what makes rivers run up hill? Also, how does a water level work on the ball Earth where all water is curved to fit the ball and the height of the water is different all around you?

First of all, rivers do not flow upwards. Please cite your source. Second, I don't see why it's so difficult to imagine that water curves downward away from you in all directions. Fluids tend to settle perpendicular to the direction of acceleration. In this case, the direction of acceleration is towards the center of the Earth, and that direction changes as you move across the surface of the Earth. I don't understand why you think this is a problem. What else would you expect to see on a round Earth?

50

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How would you measure the distance between Washington, D.C. and Beijing?

« on: December 18, 2015, 05:57:54 PM »

We've been over this, jroa. "You are 5 meters away from me" is an observation. "You are close to me" is an interpretation of that observation. Besides, this is off topic and has nothing to do with measuring the distance between two cities.

51

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How would you measure the distance between Washington, D.C. and Beijing?

« on: December 18, 2015, 03:56:55 PM »

You could measure the position of the sun in the sky at the same time in both locations. This isn't possible right now since it's the winter in the northern hemisphere, but you could use another point in between them, like Hawaii. Of course, you would need to know the radius of the Earth for this to work, but that can be determined experimentally. http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/geas/lectures/lecture10/slide05.html

52

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The space shuttle

« on: December 13, 2015, 01:48:30 PM »

This U2 spy plane video appears to just be setting up a straw-man argument.

No; the strawman argument is discussing the OP's photo as though it were genuine.

It cannot be genuine, because the ISS & the Space Shuttle are physically impossible machines.

Now go polish your telescope.

Necro!

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the ISS and space shuttle are actually physically possible machines. Is there any specific aspect of either of them that makes you think they are physically impossible? I'm genuinely curious.

53

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.

« on: December 11, 2015, 06:48:26 PM »

As for actual experiment, irrelevant.

Flat Earth in a nutshell.

54

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.

« on: December 11, 2015, 01:34:23 AM »

I would like to remind everyone that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."  This is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

Yes, but proving something is possible is not sufficient. Everything is possible in a FANTASY.

You must provide evidence (measured) to turn a FANTASY into REALITY.

Please tell your roundy theoretical physicists that all of their theories are bullshit because they can't provide evidence for them, only observations.  Go on.  Start with Neil deGrasse Tyson and Steven Hawking.

Observations can be measured.

Incorrect.  I can make that observation that a banana is yellow.  How would you measure that?

Off topic... But since you ask so stupidly, wavelengths.

Observations can also be subjective.  I could say, "That is a beautiful woman."  How would you measure this observation, Mr. smart guy?

"That is a beautiful woman" is not an observation. It is an interpretation of observations. "That woman has dark hair" or "That woman has blue eyes" are observations.

"Coal is black" is an observation. "Coal is a good source of fuel" is not.

55

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A pattern

« on: December 10, 2015, 11:41:56 PM »

Why things in space float and things here don't

That's a really sloppy way to say it. You should say objects closer to a massive body have a greater acceleration towards that body than objects farther away from the body.

Things are not claimed to float around the space station or shuttle because they are far from the Earth.  They are claimed to float because they are in free fall.

Right, which is why saying "things in space float" is incredibly imprecise.

56

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A pattern

« on: December 10, 2015, 09:10:21 PM »

Why things in space float and things here don't

That's a really sloppy way to say it. You should say objects closer to a massive body have a greater acceleration towards that body than objects farther away from the body.

Getting tired just by standing up

Again, that's a really sloppy way of putting it. A better way to put it would be that objects near a massive body have a constant acceleration towards the body (as long as they stay the same distance away) and that it takes work to increase an object's distance from a massive body.

57

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.

« on: December 10, 2015, 07:26:05 PM »

I would like to remind everyone that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."  This is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

You seem to misunderstand the point. My goal here isn't to prove or disprove anything. My goal is to find the most useful model for explaining and predicting reality. As it stands, there isn't anything that RET does not explain but DET does. This makes DET at best redundant and at worst completely useless.

58

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.

« on: December 10, 2015, 04:10:30 PM »

I think I know what you're saying, JRowe. You're saying that DET is a viable model because the results of every experiment agree with the model, right? So, please give us an example of an experiment whose results agree with DET but not with RET. Don't just say "all of them", give us an example.

59

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A pattern

« on: December 09, 2015, 10:04:49 PM »

Two sentences later he says "But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

Good effort, though.

60

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A pattern

« on: December 09, 2015, 09:54:20 PM »

Sorry, I shouldn't say disproved. That's sloppy language. Einstein made the aether obsolete 100 years ago.