31

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give me evidence the earth is either flat or round

« on: March 22, 2014, 03:10:26 PM »

Why not?

Look at my edited post and read about explanations.

32

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give me evidence the earth is either flat or round

« on: March 22, 2014, 03:06:55 PM »

If you are a critical rationalist or even a radical skeptic, then all knowledge is falsifiable according to your own logic.

True.

Each theory therefore has equal weight.

False.

Furthermore Radical scpeticism is a false view and has nothing to do with CR. Radical scpetics think we cannot have knowledge because they are justificationists about knowledge and therefore conclude that no knowledge is possible, because justification is impossible.

Whereas I am a fallibalist and believe that all knowledge is conjectural and relies on whether theory gives a better explanation than others and is, in principle, falsifiable.

33

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: My New Theory.

« on: March 22, 2014, 03:03:39 PM »

Please actually read my post and look at the videos and comprehend it, no matter what you preconceived notions are. I am entirely serious and I would like you to treat my theory that way. The distance according to the three-dimensional model is something. It does not pertain to my field so I do not care particularly so. But it does concern me in relation to my four-dimensional model, which is still being plotted. I thought this might be a good forum to show my ideas.

I am not going to pretend I understand you math or computer graphic model. We don't live in your computer. And don't try to impressed us with your field. My field is electronics and communication systems. I am not going to blur you with it. This site is more about simple discussions. If you can't answer my question that you will never have a discussion on your their of your new world flat or not. So again how far is the distance between cape town and Sydney Australia? A ten year can find it?

Starman, you have to be a troll. I am serious, you are either a troll or very gullible.

Nope. I ask easy question and most FE'ers can't answer it. Not complicated question. See if can find the answer. It is not much more difficult than finding the distance from New York to London.

The guy is taking the piss.

34

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give me evidence the earth is either flat or round

« on: March 22, 2014, 03:00:18 PM »

I was trying to tell Burt that if he doesn't understand the physics and their justification in science, he shouldn't be so quick to distrust it.
I am an not a doctor and I trust medicine because it works.
Same thing with physics.

First of all, whether or not, physics say they "justify" theories. This is false because justification leads to the munchhausen trilemma, sometimes called Agrippa's Trilemma, and Popper solved this trilemma by coming up with a fallibilist view of science, you should look up Critical Rationalism.

Second of all I cannot distrust concepts or ideas, that is what is called a categorical error.

Third of all, I was not being serious.

I think I should make it absolutley clear: The FE forum gets the same bullshit from RE and FEers alike over and over again, the only thing to do sometimes is take the piss.

35

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Visitors to Antarctica Prove Antartica is Real

« on: March 22, 2014, 02:53:49 PM »

It is BS.  Parts of Antarctica are not even in the Antarctic circle, which means they don't even have one single day of 24 hour sunlight.  You are grasping at straws and pulling weeks.

Antarctica IS within the Antarctic Circle at latitude 66° 33′ 44″ south (apart from some isolated sea ice).  Which is why it's called the... uh... "Antarctic Circle" LOL.

From approximately September 21 to March 20—or "summer" in the southern hemisphere—the sun is up continuously, circling Antarctica's horizon (for 186 days). Beginning on March 21, the sun does not rise above the free horizon until the following September 20.  However, this does not mean that everywhere inside the polar circle is totally dark.

So in fact Antarctica does have an effective a 6-month day, and a 6-month night.
 

You only get 6 months of day or night near the pole.  The whole continent of Antarctica does not experience this.  Please learn a little before you post.

Here are the facts: 24 hours of daylight occur for several months over summer, while there is complete darkness for several months during winter.

Prove it.

Amazing how lazy some people are

Prove it.

36

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: My New Theory.

« on: March 22, 2014, 02:50:28 PM »

Please actually read my post and look at the videos and comprehend it, no matter what you preconceived notions are. I am entirely serious and I would like you to treat my theory that way. The distance according to the three-dimensional model is something. It does not pertain to my field so I do not care particularly so. But it does concern me in relation to my four-dimensional model, which is still being plotted. I thought this might be a good forum to show my ideas.

I am not going to pretend I understand you math or computer graphic model. We don't live in your computer. And don't try to impressed us with your field. My field is electronics and communication systems. I am not going to blur you with it. This site is more about simple discussions. If you can't answer my question that you will never have a discussion on your their of your new world flat or not. So again how far is the distance between cape town and Sydney Australia? A ten year can find it?

Starman, you have to be a troll. I am serious, you are either a troll or very gullible.

37

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give me evidence the earth is either flat or round

« on: March 22, 2014, 02:44:28 PM »

If you are not a physicist and you deny physics, what is your basis?

Reality.

38

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Visitors to Antarctica Prove Antartica is Real

« on: March 22, 2014, 02:42:23 PM »

It is BS.  Parts of Antarctica are not even in the Antarctic circle, which means they don't even have one single day of 24 hour sunlight.  You are grasping at straws and pulling weeks.

Antarctica IS within the Antarctic Circle at latitude 66° 33′ 44″ south (apart from some isolated sea ice).  Which is why it's called the... uh... "Antarctic Circle" LOL.

From approximately September 21 to March 20—or "summer" in the southern hemisphere—the sun is up continuously, circling Antarctica's horizon (for 186 days). Beginning on March 21, the sun does not rise above the free horizon until the following September 20.  However, this does not mean that everywhere inside the polar circle is totally dark.

So in fact Antarctica does have an effective a 6-month day, and a 6-month night.
 

You only get 6 months of day or night near the pole.  The whole continent of Antarctica does not experience this.  Please learn a little before you post.

Here are the facts: 24 hours of daylight occur for several months over summer, while there is complete darkness for several months during winter.

Prove it.

39

Flat Earth General / Re: How FE'ers view scientist.

« on: March 22, 2014, 02:37:04 PM »

I am curious khow FE'ers opinion of scientist. Do you see them all working for government or military. Are your views of them negative? Are they professionals? Do they have a passion in the research they do.

You just don't get it do you?

What do you mean by "it"?

40

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Denpressure finally defined!

« on: March 22, 2014, 12:01:38 PM »

I'm sorry, I just can't bring myself to read that drivel, I really can't. Nothing against you though. I'm willing to be grilled but I'm not willing to read a load of waffle that the science world has put up when I actually know for a fact what the real reason is. Now bearing that in mind, why should I even read something that's designed to dupe?

Well this was not obviously going to happen.

Scepti, the reason you read things that are "obviously designed to dupe" is so that you can understand who and why it is trying to dupe. All people of all scientific, historical, political persuasions do this as their main job, you learn more from understanding and debunking those things that are wrong.

Everyone with a meagre bit of integrity do this. This is why religion tries to shut out criticism, or alternative views.

Maybe so...but also, when I read up on magic that is told and shown to us, I expect to find the reason behind that magic, as to how it is achieved. A bit like seeing a magic trick performed on TV, then they show you how it was actually done.
I don't see that with gravity. I see gravity explained by more magic with that magic explained by even more magic.
When I ask how it all came about, I expect to be shown. All I ever see is, "oh, you can't see it, it's just there as a force and the cup you dropped is a direct result of it."

Not good enough.
I'm explaining mine in simplistic terms and the force is real for anyone to feel and see the real effects of.

This is a very vague criticism. It could mean anything. What do you mean by "magic" what is it that precisely smacks of magic in the explanation? Be precise.

I use the term magic as a dupe term. If you can't fathom it out and they can't tell you how it works, then I call it a shrouded dupe. A con.
Just like the graviton. They named it and don't know what it is. It's like me naming my imaginary friend, Bob.
It goes for a lot of what scientists give out. They can tell you what it does but not what it is and can never show you teh reality of it. I call it all, magic.

What does Bob explain?

41

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Denpressure finally defined!

« on: March 22, 2014, 11:59:29 AM »

You people can't do simple working out because your heads are full of ridiculous formulas.

Incorrect. Initially I just did it in my head in about 20 seconds.  Simple visualisation works just as well for simple dimensions like these.  The standard formula just confirms my mental arithmetic is correct.

I will not have someone telling me I can't calculate something as ridiculously simple as surface area on a cuboid.  So NO doubt how it is calculated.

h = height
w = width
d = depth
2hw + 2wd + 2hd

Using measurements given:

Block 1.    Dimensions 2" x 2" x 2".  Surface area =  (2x2x2) + (2x2x2) + (2x2x2) = 24 sq. inches.
Block 2.    Dimensions 4" x 2" x 1".  Surface area = (2x4x2) + (2x2x1) + (2x4x1) = 28 sq. inches.
Block 3.    Dimensions 8" x 1" x 1".  Surface area = (2x8x1) + (2x1x1) + (2x8x1) = 34 sq. inches.

And your calculations?

I'll let you have another go.

No, Scepti. It is your go.

42

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Denpressure finally defined!

« on: March 22, 2014, 11:51:52 AM »

I'm sorry, I just can't bring myself to read that drivel, I really can't. Nothing against you though. I'm willing to be grilled but I'm not willing to read a load of waffle that the science world has put up when I actually know for a fact what the real reason is. Now bearing that in mind, why should I even read something that's designed to dupe?

Well this was not obviously going to happen.

Scepti, the reason you read things that are "obviously designed to dupe" is so that you can understand who and why it is trying to dupe. All people of all scientific, historical, political persuasions do this as their main job, you learn more from understanding and debunking those things that are wrong.

Everyone with a meagre bit of integrity do this. This is why religion tries to shut out criticism, or alternative views.

Maybe so...but also, when I read up on magic that is told and shown to us, I expect to find the reason behind that magic, as to how it is achieved. A bit like seeing a magic trick performed on TV, then they show you how it was actually done.
I don't see that with gravity. I see gravity explained by more magic with that magic explained by even more magic.
When I ask how it all came about, I expect to be shown. All I ever see is, "oh, you can't see it, it's just there as a force and the cup you dropped is a direct result of it."

Not good enough.
I'm explaining mine in simplistic terms and the force is real for anyone to feel and see the real effects of.

This is a very vague criticism. It could mean anything. What do you mean by "magic" what is it that precisely smacks of magic in the explanation? Be precise.

43

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Denpressure finally defined!

« on: March 22, 2014, 11:47:39 AM »

You people can't do simple working out because your heads are full of ridiculous formulas.

Incorrect. Initially I just did it in my head in about 20 seconds.  Simple visualisation works just as well for simple dimensions like these.  The standard formula just confirms my mental arithmetic is correct.

I will not have someone telling me I can't calculate something as ridiculously simple as surface area on a cuboid.  So NO doubt how it is calculated.

h = height
w = width
d = depth
2hw + 2wd + 2hd

Using measurements given:

Block 1.    Dimensions 2" x 2" x 2".  Surface area =  (2x2x2) + (2x2x2) + (2x2x2) = 24 sq. inches.
Block 2.    Dimensions 4" x 2" x 1".  Surface area = (2x4x2) + (2x2x1) + (2x4x1) = 28 sq. inches.
Block 3.    Dimensions 8" x 1" x 1".  Surface area = (2x8x1) + (2x1x1) + (2x8x1) = 34 sq. inches.

And your calculations?

This is wrong; where is the FE coefficient?

44

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Denpressure finally defined!

« on: March 22, 2014, 11:46:06 AM »

You people can't do simple working out because your heads are full of ridiculous formulas.

Yet you can't calculate the surface area of different shapes...

Poor Scepti

45

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Denpressure finally defined!

« on: March 22, 2014, 11:41:55 AM »

I'm sorry, I just can't bring myself to read that drivel, I really can't. Nothing against you though. I'm willing to be grilled but I'm not willing to read a load of waffle that the science world has put up when I actually know for a fact what the real reason is. Now bearing that in mind, why should I even read something that's designed to dupe?

Well this was not obviously going to happen.

Scepti, the reason you read things that are "obviously designed to dupe" is so that you can understand who and why it is trying to dupe, or more precisely, why it is false. All people of all scientific, historical, political persuasions do this as their main job, you learn more from understanding and debunking those things that are wrong.

Everyone with a meagre bit of integrity does this. This is why religion tries to shut out criticism, or alternative views.

46

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give me evidence the earth is either flat or round

« on: March 22, 2014, 11:34:02 AM »

This site shows the mental state is the origin to these beliefs. Seems there is a fine line between insanity and real conspiracies.

"Popper does not try to give an exhaustive characterisation of all the forms that irrationalism has taken. He, rather, focuses on what he takes to be its key component: other people's arguments are not taken at face value. Irrationalists see thought as being 'merely a somewhat superficial manifestation of what exists 'in the “deeper” layers of human nature' and then look for hidden motives from which they believe theories and arguments spring. […], [rationalism, on the other hand] at its heart is a readiness not to lightly dismiss contrary opinions and a willingness not to ignore or evade criticisms directed at your own views."

The accusation of metnal illness fits in with "Irrationalists see thought as being 'merely a somewhat superficial manifestation of what exists 'in the “deeper” layers of human nature' and then look for hidden motives from which they believe theories and arguments spring."

that means you are being irrational, no?

47

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How Do Flat Earters Explain an Eclipse?

« on: March 22, 2014, 10:49:42 AM »

FET is grounded in the real.  RET exists only in the hypothetical (scientific method) by choice, definition, methodology and can not possibly attain the same level of evidence as FET (even with RET's unlimited budget).  So which is more normal and true? 

side note:

It does not take high priced (worthy of ridicule when misguided and overly prized to a fault) education or an advanced degree to conclude the Earth is flat.  See above.

Have you never seen a horizon before? A sunset? It is nuts to think every space photo is false. Do you know Foucault's Pendulum? That proves the Earth rotates on it's axis. Flat Earth theory makes no sense in how we travel by air and how the seasons work. FET makes zero sense and as you will soon demonstrate, there is no reason to believe it. SHOW ME ONE! ONE REASON!

But better yet, give me 1 piece of evidence that shows we can even possibly live on a Flat Earth. JUST ONE!

WE have all posted a million reasons we know the Earth is round.

Argument from incredulity is not a good argument.

48

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How Do Flat Earters Explain an Eclipse?

« on: March 21, 2014, 04:07:06 PM »

Burt I am all out of patience. Read the threads I posted. No I am not retarded. I need to go as I can't type anymore to you imbeciles!

Imbeciles, so even the people who are explaining the scientific method are imbeciles.

You do realize I am a "round-earther" don't you?

49

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give me evidence the earth is either flat or round

« on: March 21, 2014, 04:01:20 PM »

There comes a point where stupidity should be considered a crime.

False.

50

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Absolute Proof the Earth Rotates

« on: March 21, 2014, 03:55:51 PM »

  I am here for support.

 

51

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How Do Flat Earters Explain an Eclipse?

« on: March 21, 2014, 03:52:36 PM »

Burt I posted about 5 hours of proof. You just need to read what all the sensible people who understand 8 year old science has been trying to explain to you.

To me?

Are you like retarded or something?

52

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How Do Flat Earters Explain an Eclipse?

« on: March 21, 2014, 03:49:28 PM »

Oh those are not personal attacks. I am staying the facts. You either are retarded, dumb, messing around for fun or mentally ill. There is no other option. This is the truth not an attack.

Prove it.

53

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How Do Flat Earters Explain an Eclipse?

« on: March 21, 2014, 03:48:50 PM »

Why that be true?  We only see lunar eclipses at night.  If the Antimoon is true, then maybe we just do not see its effects during the day.

There is an antijroa on the the antimoon eating anti-ants.

54

Flat Earth General / Re: Religion

« on: March 21, 2014, 03:46:31 PM »

Please refrain from tl:dr or one word, low content responses in these upper fora. Thanks!

Stop trying to derail this important discussion. If you have a problem please create a post in Suggestions and Concerns where it will receive immediate attention.

You do realize this is the flatearth forums, right, and you are called fappenhosen right?

Or have i been trolled

55

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Denpressure finally defined!

« on: March 21, 2014, 02:11:07 PM »

Most people know what air pressure is and can see it's effects and feel it, yet it's ridiculed in favour of something that cannot be described or shown as a force, physically. "It's just gravity, so there", they say.

You know, when you say things like this, I can't help but think you don't know what the theory of gravity actually is.

I fear you may be arguing against a misapprehension on your part.

Gravity is a complete lie, there is no theory.

Scepti, you know very well there is one.

You know very well that it is a demonstrable theory.

And you know very well that incredulity is not an argument.

So, the question remains, without evidence, logic, or even a coherent working counter-theory, what leg do you have to stand on to call gravity a lie?

Ok, here's your chance. Prove to me physically that gravity exists and tell me what gravity is.

"Relativity" by Einstein. He can do a better job than we can.

or Borns basic introduction to relativity (it is very basic, and never uses anything beyond college level algebra to explain the theory).

These are just suggestions for what it is.

The demonstrations of relativity can be gleaned and tested for yourself after you understand the theory. Understanding a theory gives you the tools to devise a test.

Can you actually understand it?

Sure. What is the speed of light?

There isn't one.

How do you explain red shift?

56

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Denpressure finally defined!

« on: March 21, 2014, 02:04:15 PM »

Most people know what air pressure is and can see it's effects and feel it, yet it's ridiculed in favour of something that cannot be described or shown as a force, physically. "It's just gravity, so there", they say.

You know, when you say things like this, I can't help but think you don't know what the theory of gravity actually is.

I fear you may be arguing against a misapprehension on your part.

Gravity is a complete lie, there is no theory.

Scepti, you know very well there is one.

You know very well that it is a demonstrable theory.

And you know very well that incredulity is not an argument.

So, the question remains, without evidence, logic, or even a coherent working counter-theory, what leg do you have to stand on to call gravity a lie?

Ok, here's your chance. Prove to me physically that gravity exists and tell me what gravity is.

"Relativity" by Einstein. He can do a better job than we can.

or Borns basic introduction to relativity (it is very basic, and never uses anything beyond college level algebra to explain the theory).

These are just suggestions for what it is.

The demonstrations of relativity can be gleaned and tested for yourself after you understand the theory. Understanding a theory gives you the tools to devise a test.

Can you actually understand it?

Yes.

57

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Denpressure finally defined!

« on: March 21, 2014, 01:58:58 PM »

Most people know what air pressure is and can see it's effects and feel it, yet it's ridiculed in favour of something that cannot be described or shown as a force, physically. "It's just gravity, so there", they say.

You know, when you say things like this, I can't help but think you don't know what the theory of gravity actually is.

I fear you may be arguing against a misapprehension on your part.

Gravity is a complete lie, there is no theory.

Scepti, you know very well there is one.

You know very well that it is a demonstrable theory.

And you know very well that incredulity is not an argument.

So, the question remains, without evidence, logic, or even a coherent working counter-theory, what leg do you have to stand on to call gravity a lie?

Ok, here's your chance. Prove to me physically that gravity exists and tell me what gravity is.

"Relativity" by Einstein. He can do a better job than we can.

or Borns basic introduction to relativity (it is very basic, and never uses anything beyond college level algebra to explain the theory).

These are just suggestions for what it is.

The demonstrations of relativity can be gleaned and tested for yourself after you understand the theory. Understanding a theory gives you the tools to devise a test.


http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Theory-Relativity-Max-Born/dp/0486607690

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Routledge-Classics-Albert-Einstein/dp/0415255384/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1395435758&sr=1-4&keywords=Relativity+routledge

58

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Denpressure finally defined!

« on: March 21, 2014, 01:56:24 PM »

Most people know what air pressure is and can see it's effects and feel it, yet it's ridiculed in favour of something that cannot be described or shown as a force, physically. "It's just gravity, so there", they say.

You know, when you say things like this, I can't help but think you don't know what the theory of gravity actually is.

I fear you may be arguing against a misapprehension on your part.

Gravity is a complete lie, there is no theory.

Lie is a type of theory. It is theory about the world. Though it is false, the only reason it becomes lie is because the person intending to pass it on knows that it is untrue. Even if gravity is a lie, it would be a testable and criticisable theory. As popper said something with bad origins isn't necessarily bad.

59

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Denpressure finally defined!

« on: March 21, 2014, 01:30:24 PM »

I have 3 objects, all the same size.

One is made of alumnium, one of copper and one of aluminum with a thin coating of copper.

How will the weights vary?

By density. The one that's more dense will displace more pressure.

Just do everything but mention the word gravity why donchya. Do you come out in rashes if you mention the word gravity... does it give you a headache?

I have no knowledge of gravity.

Well that is a play on words. You understand what the theory of gravity attempts to explain and solve though. So you know what it attempts to solve and so you know what it is. Because it is true that it attempts to solve these things, and if you know that then you have knowledge of the theory of gravity.

The point is, I know it's a lie so I can't accept it as knowledge.

But it is a bit weird to describe exactly what theory says, but deny the word that signifies the state of affairs you say exists.

That is not denying the theory, it is denying the word, and is called a Shell game.

60

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Denpressure finally defined!

« on: March 21, 2014, 01:27:28 PM »

I have 3 objects, all the same size.

One is made of alumnium, one of copper and one of aluminum with a thin coating of copper.

How will the weights vary?

By density. The one that's more dense will displace more pressure.

Just do everything but mention the word gravity why donchya. Do you come out in rashes if you mention the word gravity... does it give you a headache?

I have no knowledge of gravity.

Well that is a play on words. You understand what the theory of gravity attempts to explain and solve though. So you know what it attempts to solve and so you know what it is. Because it is true that it attempts to solve these things, and if you know that then you have knowledge of the theory of gravity.