22351

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Plumb line on an oblate spheroïd

« on: December 17, 2016, 01:32:09 PM »

To be fair 300mm may as well be in a different state, elevator rails run on 1-2mm tolerence out of plumb for their entire travel. By code the shafts themselves have to be within about 30mm of plumb.

A building that is 300mm on the piss^[1] would never pass in Australia.

I find that quite difficult to believe considering buildings sway by far more than that.

It also makes no sense for them to need that.
I would understand tight tolerances for the distance between the rails and no sharp coreners such that the elevator travels smoothly, but I don't see why you couldn't have them run at an angle.

22352

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shap of the dome.

« on: December 17, 2016, 01:23:08 PM »

Unless the flat earth is non euclidean.

you mean 'non-flat'.. dude if you're accepting John Davis's theory, then you're admitting the earth IS NOT FLAT

It gets a bit strange describing things as flat or not in non-euclidean space, just like describing things as straight or not.

Straight lines in spherical geometry are great circles or sections of them, even though these lines appear to curve compared to Euclidean space.
If you had non-Euclidean space made of say spherical geometry extending outwards, so you have space composed of shells of spherical geometry (so it has r, theta and phi as the coordinates) rather than stacks of Euclidean planes, then a flat surface would be one which doesn't curve in this geometry. So one example would be a plane through the origin. One perpendicular to that would be one of the spherical shells, for the latter plane, it has the same r coordinate.

22353

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Re: Ariane

« on: December 17, 2016, 01:12:40 PM »

that's what most people think about G-d, i even have christian friends that believe so. But for example G-d would not act against someone's will (if you forget Old Testament for a minute because it's one of a kind). He lets people free, so no he is not totally "omnipotent"

Firstly, PURE BULLSHIT!!!.
He happily interfered with the free will of the pharaoh. He manipulated Pharaoh, hardening his heart so Pharaoh would not let the Israelites go. The first time he didn't do you know what Pharaoh did? He made a deal with Moses, that all the frogs are returned to the water and the Israelites are free to go. Do you know what God did then? He put all the frogs into a stinking heap because he wasn't done with the tormenting of the Egyptians to show off yet. He hadn't done his grand finale where he kills all the first borns, even the first born of the slave at the well.

So no, God is happy to act against someone's will.

Regardless, notice the key word you used?
"let"
This means God could freely stop it, he just chooses not to.
Do you think that is good?
If you see a child being beaten and raped, what do you think the morally correct or good choice of action is?
To sit idly by and do nothing, or to help the child? What if you were so powerful that you could easily help the child at absolutely no cost to you.

And before you go appealing to the free will of the rapist, what about the free will of the child?
If God cared about free will so much, why isn't he protecting it? Why is he allowing people to blatantly violate the free will of others?

At best, your god is apathetic to people's suffering. At worst, it is malevolent or biased.

And no, I'm not going to forgot the OT, as it is very good at showing your god is an evil piece of shit.

if you read Old testament without knowing the reasons behind, of course it's not a nice G-d, and that's what most people will think when considering christianity/judaism

Nope. Even knowing the reasons behind it, your god is still an evil piece of shit.
Christians need to find excuses to cover up or hide the OT because of how abhorrent God is there.

And do you notice what you are doing? You don't even bother trying to explain it away, you just dismiss it.

most people don't understand that. It takes elites to get it and to be introduced to the whole raw pure truth that would burn others' eyes

You mean the truth that it was made up by man to control primitive ignorant people?

as for the word games, it may sound a bit childish and not really serious but one has to understand that the devil loves leaving traces of him everywhere, like clues on a path, he is narcissistic, and a (soul) collector

You claim this, but do you have any proof?
After all, as I said before, your god is the evil one, not Satan.

Edit: fixed a typo.

22354

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Chris Hadfield and Barenaked Ladies Live : how about the delay?

« on: December 17, 2016, 12:58:52 PM »

give me one video where the conditions are perfect (no delay due to the interview setup) and where there is no delay and i'll believe you

You already provided one where there is no noticeable delay.

You are the one making the claim. You are the one with the burden of proof.
You are claiming the absence of a delay means the ISS can't be in space.
It is on you to prove that claim.
So far all you have done is appeal to interviews which pretty much always have delays whenever there is a connection, even in the same city.

Do you have any proof or rational explanation for why communications with the ISS require delays?
I did the math. Assuming a good set up, it has a delay of a few ms if I recall correctly.

22355

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Chris Hadfield and Barenaked Ladies Live : how about the delay?

« on: December 17, 2016, 02:44:36 AM »

Again, why should there be any significant delay. You are yet to explain that part.

because there are delays on live interviews , on ALL the interviews, maybe ?

So?
That is an interview, not a music performance.

Like I said elsewhere, there are delays on interviews in the same city.

So this wouldn't mean that it couldn't be in space, it would mean that it couldn't happen at all and nothing could ever be live, or your just don't understand.

What about the ISS or it being in space requires the delay?

Don't bother giving me examples of when delay was there.

22356

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is Mainstream Science Wrong?

« on: December 17, 2016, 02:37:23 AM »

No. It is pretty much never entirely wrong.
Instead it can be found to be a poor approximation.

And no, that website doesn't' say that. It just adds those onto the timeline for links. Do you notice how the times were indicated with arrows or specific labels in the middle of a coloured section?

But what does this have to do with the shape of Earth?

22357

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Plumb line on an oblate spheroïd

« on: December 17, 2016, 02:27:12 AM »

300 mm is HUGE it would lead to a building that is CURVED i don't thing that's to take lightly

No. It isn't.
It is tiny.

If you scaled it down so it would fit on a page, that 100 m (10 000 cm) has to become roughly 25 cm. That is a 1:400 scale, making the 30 cm offset be 0.75 mm.
You would not notice that, especially without any straight reference.

22358

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Plumb line on an oblate spheroïd

« on: December 17, 2016, 02:10:24 AM »

I really dislike people jumping in and trying to object when they don't understand.
Unless it was something said in the video in which case I apologise.

I'm not going to bother watching the video as I think it will likely be entirely pointless. If you think it made some wonderful point, feel free to remake it here.

i stumbled upon this nice video that shows that it would be impossible to build high buildings using plumb lines (except at the equator and the poles)

Good thing they don't.

I've seen plenty of tall buildings being built. They don't typically use plumb lines. I am yet to see a single one being used.
Instead they will use various levels, including natural levels like the surface of fluids.

because if the earth is an oblate spheroid, at a height of 100 meters a plumb line at ground level would be 30 cm away from a plumb line at the top of the building, (at an altitude of 45° from equator)

That is quite a poor way of phrasing it.
I assume you mean if you follow the plumb line up, and follow a hypothetical line which extends from the plumb line going straight, they would end up 30 cm apart?

Yes, this is what happens (although I haven't done the math to confirm that distance).
At the surface, gravity and inertia combine to produce a plumb line that is roughly perpendicular to the surface of the oblate spheroid (ignoring irregularities).
As you go up higher, the radius increases and thus inertia plays a bigger role, changing the direction.

Some simple math:
omega=15 degrees an hour (rotation rate of Earth).
R0=Radius of Earth (not going to bother with the oblate bit for more precise calculations, I will use average) = 6371 km.
G is as per reality.
M=Mass of Earth is 5.97237E24 kg.
r0=Radius of circle at 45 degrees N = R/sqrt(2)=4504.98 km.
R1=Distance from centre of Earth to the 100 m hight of the building=6371.1 km.
r1=similar to above=4505.05 km.

Now, acceleration due to gravity at these points:
g1=9.82014041.
g2=9.819832141.
a0=0.023824558.
a1=0.023824932.

The important part is direction. Pretending g is straight down (for simplicity), and a is at 45 degrees relative to that, but going out, a can be broken down into a vertical component and a horizontal component (each equal to a/sqrt(2))
This means the acceleration going horizontal would be:
ah0=0.016846507
ah1=0.016846771
and the vertical acceleration (going down would be):
av0=9.803293903
av1=9.80298537

And thus the direction (relative to straight down) would be:
d1=0.098460048 degrees.
d2=0.098464692 degrees.

So the plumb line does curve away from the axis of rotation, such that far enough away from Earth, it would be perpendicular to the axis of rotation.

So yes, it curves away.

Who cares?
For the building to be built strongly, it should follow that.
Would anyone notice? It is a tiny change in angle. The distance, if you calculated it honestly, would result in a pitch (if it just went straight that way) of a mere 0.17 degrees.
I doubt anyone will notice that.
Buildings can sway over a m at the top.

we all know this doesn't happen

Do we? Or is this just another baseless assertion?

FE victory once again

Nope.
FE baseless claims once again.

22359

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinitive energy (Alternative)

« on: December 17, 2016, 01:19:21 AM »

But all of that isn't really needed. You effectively have a closed loop (and that would be required if you hope to try and do it by changing the pressure to make the water flow up). As such, the entire system would find an equilibrium, where the water is forced equally in both directions around the loop, meaning it wouldn't flow around the loop.

22360

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinitive energy (Alternative)

« on: December 17, 2016, 01:17:10 AM »

Are you really this insane to think something like that would work, or are you just trolling?
I know, this has a lot of math, but that is what you wanted.

Assuming the tube is empty (so you just stuck it in, P1 will be slightly higher than Pa. This will cause water to flow up the tube.
But the height it will flow will depend on P1 and Pa. P1 will have a similar relationship between the height of the water and Pa.
These work out such that the water will flow up to the height of the original container.

Some math to show this:
Lets say the main container has a cross sectional area of A and a height of H filled with water.
The smaller tube will have a cross sectional are of a, and a height of h filled with water.
Atmospheric pressure will be constant at Pa (technically it varies ever so slightly, but it varies with altitude so if h and H are the same, Pa will be the same, later I will follow a similar convention, Pa for main container, pa for tube).
The calculated pressure at the bottom of the main container (ignoring the effect of the tube) will be P1.
The calculated pressure at the bottom of the tube (ignoring the effect of the main container) will be p1.

Equilibrium will be when P1 and p1 are the same.
If P1 is greater than p1, then the water in the main container will push the water up the tube.
If p1 is greater than P1, then the water in the tube will push the water up the main container.
If P1 is equal to p1, then they push each other equally at thus there is no net flow.

So what are the pressures (using real math):
The pressure from the atmosphere plus the pressure from the weight of the water.
This means both are of the form Pa+x (so we could just ignore it).
The force due to the weight of the water is the mass times g. The mass of the water is the volume times the density (rho, technically it varies slightly, but it varies based upon pressure which in this case is related to height and it is a small difference and thus can be ignored). The volume is the cross sectional area times the height.
And the pressure is the force divided by the area.
So for the main container we have:
P1=Pa+A*H*rho*g/A=Pa+H*rho*g.
For the tube we have:
p1=Pa+a*h*rho*g/a=Pa+h*rho*g.

So what will their heights be? At equillibrium, they will be the same. This means to find the height we want P1=p1.
This means we need to find H and h (or their ratio) such that P1=p1, or:
Pa+H*rho*g=Pa+h*rho*g
H*rho*g=h*rho*g (after subtracting Pa from both sides).
H=h (after dividing both sides by rho*g).

So the equilibrium position is when the 2 heights are the same.

You can also do it slightly differently where you measure the height difference, in this case h=H+dh, and dh is the height difference.
That means for the above we have H=H+dh, and thus dh=0, or a nicer, full derivation starting from the start of the above:
p1=pa+(H+dh)*rho*g=pa+h*rho*g+dh*rho*g.
So to solve the above we have:
Pa+H*rho*g=pa+H*rho*g+dh*rho*g.
Pa=pa+dh*rho*g (after subtracting H*rho*g from both sides).
Pa-pa=dh*rho*g (subtracting pa from both sides).
dh=(Pa-pa)/rho*g.

So now if Pa is the same as pa we have:
dh=(Pa-Pa)/rho*g=0.
So, the water in the tube will be at the same height as the water in the main container.

The exception to this is when the 2 have different pressures so Pa is not the same as pa.

The tube in the video had pa=0 (technically it would have been the vapour pressure of water, but I will just leave that as effectively 0.
In this case you have:
dh=(Pa-0)/rho*g
Making a few simplifications, rho for water is 1 g/cm^3, or 1000 kg/m^3, Pa=100 kPa=100 kN/m^2=100 000 (kg m/s^2)/m^2=100 000 kg/m s^2, and g is 10 m/s^2 (simplifying, I know the number will be slightly off, but I don't care).
This means dh=(100 000/(1000*10) ((kg / m s^2) / ((kg/m^3) (m/s^2)))=10 m.
That means that under a vacuum, the water can go up 10 m.
If instead you try it with mercury, you get roughly 760 mm (the actual number for an atmosphere), the main thing that changes is the density (and vapour pressure changes slightly), which is roughly 13.5 times as much.
This is how a barometer works.

The other option is increasing Pa as in a pump.

22361

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Chris Hadfield and Barenaked Ladies Live : how about the delay?

« on: December 16, 2016, 11:31:17 PM »

Again, why should there be any significant delay. You are yet to explain that part.

22362

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Re: Ariane

« on: December 16, 2016, 02:10:44 PM »

i know G-d did all that. But the question is : why he did it? Did he do it because it's his nature? or did he do it because he had to ?

And that is quite a simple question to answer.
God, by virtue of being an omnipotent being, didn't have to do anything.
As such, anything he did, he did so willingly, not out of obligation.
As such, the "he had to" excuse is removed and all that is left is his nature.

This means all these evil acts of god are his own choice and reflective of his nature.

The only escape is to declare that God is not omnipotent, completely destroying Christianity as that means there is something above God.

22363

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Re: Ariane

« on: December 16, 2016, 02:05:46 PM »

Jack, the very word Christian means Christ-like. And I'm gonna have to say that no Christians that I know blatantly defy the teachings of Christ. Now, there are those that call themselves Christians, but that's as far as being Christ-like they are. In name only. Perhaps you could explain what Jesus did or taught that was so wrong? Remember, not everyone who calls themselves a Christian really are. And I'll agree there are a lot. But not every Muslim is a terrorist suicide bomber either, meaning you can't lump them all together on the actions of a few. Jesus also said we would be hated by all men for His  namesake. He was right about that. And I'm not trying to "proselytize" to you, don't get me wrong. I know where you stand.

No. It doesn't.
It means a follower of Christ.
This is quite complicated due to him appealing to "the father's" rule, and allegedly being the same entity as God.

Being "Christ like" would be quite vague as well. Does that mean flipping over tables and driving people out with whips, telling people to steal donkeys, and so on? How about getting nailed to a cross and rising again three days later or performing magic tricks?

Every religion has large numbers of people that do not follow it, so bringing up another religion doesn't help your case.

As for dismissing those that don't follow the teachings of Christ, which ones will they be? The bigots that most people hate, or the nice ones? For a comparison to Islam, would they be the ones strapping bombs to themselves and fighting until there is no more disbelief and all religion is for Allah, or the nice ones that oppose that?
I don't lump them based upon the actions of a few. I judge them based upon the book and commands and being they claim to follow.
The god of Abraham is an abhorrent evil tyrant that no decent human being would ever follow or worship except out of cowardice, brainwashing or stupidity.

There are several issues with Jesus. Turn the other cheek. To what extent does that apply?
He is rejecting "an eye for an eye" and suggesting that even if someone is violent towards you, you should merely turn the other cheek and let them continue.
How many "Christians" are actually like that? How many Christians will happily be assaulted and turn the other cheek and allow it to continue, rather than defending themselves?
How many would help others and try stop the attack rather than just turning the other cheek? How many would say these people shouldn't be punished?
How many instead call for the death sentence? (the same applies to other related issues from that sermon, such as being sued, giving what is asked of you and so on).
Again, this is a massive issue because of the contradictions between Jesus and God. God commands the death sentence for so much. So which are Christians meant to follow?

How about his temper tantrum, flipping over tables and chasing out people with whips?

And there are other teachings, like telling people to remove parts of themselves rather than end up in hell, and that if you don't kiss his ass you will burn in hell. That is not the teachings of a good being (at least not one that has control).
How about his bigotry, calling Cannanites dogs?
How about telling people to give up everything they own. How many Christians do that?
What about setting people against their family?

So there is plenty that is lacking, and that is just Jesus. If you include God by extension it gets far worse.

And there are countless crimes committed by Christianity in the past (and present) like burning "wtiches" persecuting homosexuals and those that don't believe and so on.

22364

Flat Earth Debate / Re: what do you base it on?

« on: December 16, 2016, 01:52:27 PM »

Sounds more like a description of an observation rather than a functional physical model.

When a Flat Earther presents something that vague they get their nuts ripped off.   

No. Typically the flat Earthers present 2 things in competition (or ignore one of them), and then gets their nuts ripped off, like claiming Earth can't possibly be spinning because we would all fly off.
In that cause you do need the math as you need to show that force is significant.

The observation in this case is that the sun appears to orbit Earth, and all the planets follow strange paths.
The explanation of this is that Earth is rotating and orbiting the sun (as are other planets), and there is a force causing it to orbit, the force being gravity.
It even provides simple explanatory power, so it is a model.
It just isn't a mathematical model with all the details.

It is somewhat like a sketch to show how things fit together/work vs an accurate scale drawing.

22365

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view

« on: December 16, 2016, 01:43:01 PM »

One last time : the pendulum is hanged in a church or whatever it's exactly the same as beeing in a train for instance in my previous example. Now if i apply motion to this train (doesn't matter what kind of motion, but it has to have no acceleration, like on earth), everything that is inside will also move with the train, that's all

Yes and no.
If the train is in motion, with no acceleration, then yes, everything will move with the train, assuming that was already in motion.
But the only kind of motion like this is linear motion.
Angular or rotational motion requires constant acceleration, it is just a unique type which requires no energy input for that acceleration.
So no, that isn't like Earth.
Objects on Earth are constantly accelerating.
Any object (or the individual substituents of that object) in circular motion is constantly accelerating.

If you mean the train is rotating, then it depends upon several things, primarily the mechanism by which this force is provided. For example, the components of the train are typically all held together through rigid, strong connections and thus will rotate as one with the force being applied through it.
A person standing on the train, not holding anything would have the force put through their feet, which may be enough, or it may cause their feet to move with the train while their body doesn't, resulting in them falling over.
For a pendulum, that just has the string and air resistance. The air resistance is basically nothing and thus can be ignored. The string is somewhat more complex. If it is centred about the axis of rotation, then it isn't capable of providing any significant force to keep the pendulum rotating, unless it is rotating at a very high speed (like you spinning a ball on a string). If it is off centre, then it depends on how fast the train is turning and how much gravity pulls it down, If it rotates slowly, and the pendulum is just hanging (not swinging), then its position will remain the same relative to the train. It will depend on the connection (i.e. if the string is free to swivel or is fixed) as to if it will rotate.

so there Is a rotational force applied to everything inside the train. And the other force is gravity, that's it

No. There isn't. As there is no acceleration, there is no force being applied. That means the train cannot be rotating as that requires a constant application of force.
For a simple case of a train rotating, that force (and acceleration) typically occurs due to the inter-molecular forcing acting on the various parts of the train, or between things contacting the parts of the train, like your feet. The force is dependent on that connection.

all other forces are too small to be considered (air resistance, etc)

But the rotational force isn't just some uniform force like gravity.
It depends upon what is connecting it.
If you are standing on it firmly, then that can provide the force.
If you are in the air (assuming this part of Earth is relatively flat, perpendicular to the axis of rotation, so near the poles), then the only thing that provides this force is the air.
For the pendulum, it has the string, and the air. But the string is set up to avoid having the mounting point rotate the ball, and that would only rotate the ball, not cause it to precess.
So the only thing that will be rotating the plane the pendulum is swinging in is the air resistance.
As that is too small to be considered, that means the pendulum doesn't experience a force causing it to rotate its plane of oscillation.

I understand perfectly your point of view : which is : the pendulum is in the air so it is not affected by the rotation of the wagon, but it is not the case. Beeing "in the air" is not enough to be freed from the wagon movements

Why?
The air is the only thing keeping it attached to the wagon's movements (rotational).
So what is keeping it fixed to the wagon's movements?

You can't just assert there is some magic rotating force. You need to explain why and what is causing it.

Even things sitting in the wagon aren't necessarily fixed.
You can try it with a bowl of water, put cling wrap over the top to make it a closed environment and spin it. See what happens.
Does the water stay flat or get pushed to the side (note: if you get a parabolic bowl (I think) you can have it spin at just the right speed to coat the surface of the bowl in a layer of near uniform thickness)?
Now go and put a ping pong ball in it. What happens to it?

22366

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the exact speed of the atmosphere up to space?

« on: December 16, 2016, 01:16:14 PM »

okay so there is a sudden decrease around 100 km that's all i wanted to know

Again, no one said that.
The atmosphere of Earth effectively ceases to exist at high altitudes.
As such, asking for its speed is pointless.

At such high altitudes (and higher), the atmosphere doesn't act as a gas. It acts as a collection of free flowing particles, occasionally colliding into one another.

22367

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Better lie

« on: December 16, 2016, 01:11:27 PM »

Summary of following:
Using the theistic mindset, the argument is mute, and can basically boil down to "God exists, therefore God exists". It doesn't prove anything, it just baselessly asserts it.
Either way, the theist is the one that has the problem in the argument. The atheist's responses are perfectly rational due to the ambiguity of the theist's "everything" and the special pleading/baselessly assertions made by the theist.

Next questions:
Atheist mindset:
Then what caused God?
Theistic mindset (and what will likely be a subsequent question for the atheistic mindset):
Why should I assume the universe is a created thing (has a cause) and your god is not?

"Everything" according to atheist is everything that exists - fine
"Everything" according to theists is everything created - key point

So theists, because of their indoctrination and brainwashing need to discard the very meaning of words.

Take a moment to understand this:
The argument is meant to be an argument to convince someone. As such, that argument cannot start out from the theistic mindset. It cannot start with the assumption that god exists and created everything except itself. It needs to start from the atheistic mindset.

And as I said before, with the theistic mindset, it is a tautology which makes the entire argument pointless as it changes the first premise from "everything has a cause" to "everything that has a cause (specifically a creator) has a cause".
This means instead of using this assumption to show the universe needs a cause, you need to show the universe has a creator to then claim it has a cause.
This means you need to prove this god of yours exists and created the universe (to show the universe is a creation), before being able to use the universe as part of a proof of a god based upon the assumption created things have a cause. So you would need to prove God exists to prove God exists.
Notice a problem with that?

It is also pure bullshit.
The theistic mindset does not declare everything to mean everything that is created. That would be created things. It also wouldn't include things which are products of nature, which in the theistic worldview are not created but are products of nature. They would be part of "creation", but not created things.
It would be better if you changed it to everything that is part of creation or everything that has a cause, or more simply (to help show the dishonesty) everything except god.
But notice something they all have in common? They all follow the pattern of everything that is X or everything that is not Y. This means you are already using the word everything and realise you need to qualify it. This means that everything doesn't just mean everything created. You realise it means everything, but you need to be dishonest and cover that up to make the argument work.

Everything is the super-set. Everything that is X is a subset of everything. That means if you accept the set of everything that exists as one possible set (which is really just a subset of everything in more complex philosophy which deals with possible things, but they wouldn't exist in reality and thus can be ignored), then everything without qualifiers would include everything in that set, which would include any created or uncreated things that exist.

So if you want to mean something other than everything, use a different word. Qualify it to remove ambiguity. Attack the theist for making such a vague, ambiguous argument, not the atheist for following the simple meaning of it.
But again, you can't, as it would show the argument to be complete crap.

Again, if that was going to be such an issue, you should have attacked the hypothetical theist (and pretty much all philosophers and con men that have used the first cause argument) for just using everything rather than all of creation or some crap like that.
But you can't, because it then shows the argument to be pure bullshit and you don't want that. Your indoctrinated theistic mindset can't allow that.

So when the question means two different things even if just slightly then how can two different questions unconditionally have the same answer?

They don't. It is just dishonest theistic manipulation of it.

Again, I understand fine, I just see through the dishonest bullshit.

Q. Does everything need a cause?
(answer according to above belief system of "everything")
Atheist answer: Yes everything has a cause
Theist answer: Yes everything has a cause

Until you grasp the context, reference and definition you will remain confused.

So, according to the atheist mindset, the one which must be used in a proof of God's existence (otherwise it is simply assuming a god exists to prove a god exists which isn't a proof at all), God, being part of everything, must have a cause.
As such, the atheist's question is perfectly valid.

With the theistic "definition", the argument is just as valid (and makes as much sense) as this:
Everything that is red is red.
Thus the universe has a cause.
This cause is God.

It makes the first premise entirely pointless and effectively starts the argument by asserting the universe has a cause, which is no better than asserting God has a cause.
Thus it makes sense for why the atheist would question what caused God and then ask why the theist asserts that the universe has a cause and God doesn't and want proof of that claim before accepting the rest of the argument.

Now do you understand the problem with this argument and why the atheist asked such a question?

Again, I do understand, I just see through the dishonest bullshit. I am not confused in the slightest.

So next question:

Atheist mindset:
Then what caused God?
Theistic mindset (and what will likely be a subsequent question for the atheistic mindset):
Why should I assume the universe is a created thing (has a cause) and your god is not?

22368

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Water as proof for a FE

« on: December 16, 2016, 12:36:53 PM »

Draw a dot on a sphere. Wherever you draw that dot, let that represent "up."

Draw different color dot on the opposite side of sphere. Let that represent "down."

Now, pour water on sphere in any environment of your choosing, whether in your mystical 1 g environment or a 0 g environment, whatever...

When your done, the water will not be on that sphere. Guaranteed.

It will be slightly damp (if you act fast enough) however and with any luck, that will reduce the friction for your next step...

So you are just picking 2 random points on the sphere, not any rational choice.
In that case you can't complain about upside down water or water clinging to the bottom, as any point can be the bottom or the top.
You can even do the same with a plate or a bowl, arbitrarily picking one side as up and the other as down.

No. Not guaranteed.
In an environment free from external influences which act differently on the water and sphere (i.e. a 0g environment with a few other criteria), then the water will stick. Surface tension alone dictates that.

Water falling from the sky (rain), sticks to a sphere of water, until the air perturbs it enough to rip it apart.

So no, it has been done plenty of time and unless there is something forcing that water off, it will stick.

If you wish to assert it wont (remember, you are claiming Earth can't be a spinning ball because the water wouldn't stick, so it is your claim) then you need to prove it.

Then everything about the Earth is also in a state of "free fall," Geoff. There goes your arguments about inertia and what not...

Massive failure...^=also rides unicorns.

Yes, everything about Earth, including the moon, is in a state of free fall w.r.t. the sun.

That is why the moon doesn't fall to the sun even though the gravitational attraction of the sun is greater than that of Earth.
This is why we don't fall off the "bottom" of Earth into the sun; because Earth and everything on it is in a state of free fall w.r.t. the sun.

If Earth was held up above the sun by some magic giant, just holding it steady, things would fall off Earth into the sun (at least if they got high enough, unfortunately, Earth is too far away from the sun and thus its gravity is stronger at the surface. The acceleration from the sun is roughly 5.9 mm/s^2.  For Earth, that corresponds to an altitude of roughly 260 000 km.)

This is just another piece of evidence that Earth is orbiting the sun.

What does this have to do with inertia at all?

22369

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Re: Ariane

« on: December 15, 2016, 01:10:11 PM »

oh my...do you really believe what you said? Are you gnostic? I respect gnostics and all but considering Satan the good one, is a bit far fetched to me

Do you mean gnostic in the sense of knowing that gods are made up, or gnostics as in the religious affiliation?

I don't really care if it is far fetched to you, it is the truth.
What did Satan do?
Tell mankind the truth about the tree, oppose God, tormented Job at God's request or at least with his permission, and try to get Jesus on his side (although it makes more sense for Jesus to be (working with) Satan than to be (working with) God.

What did God do?
Set mankind up to fail, lying to them in the process.
Wait for the world to turn to shit then murder basically everyone.
Tell someone to kill their son, then when stopped by an angel, change it to mutilate their genitals.
Wiped out entire cities.
Turned a woman to salt just for looking back.
Happily sat by while Job was tormented just to prove that Job would be loyal.
Set up the conditions which would result in the Jews coming to Egypt.
Tormenting the Egyptians just to show off, hardening the Pharaoh's heart to prevent him from letting the Jews go.
Having people murdered for not kissing his ass such as by collecting firewood on Saturday or worshipping another God.
Promoted slavery.
Commanded or carried out countless acts of genocide.
Demanded blood sacrifice to atone for "sins".
And so on.

The only thing that would actually be far fetched is someone suggesting God is the good one.

as for the Nazis beeing christians, i just don't think so, do you have any proof ? I know Hitler was an occultist (i don't say all occultists are bad) but chrisitan? come one, with a jewish god Jesus? hum

It is quite well documented. I suspect just like the pendulum you wont care for evidence and will just reject it.
Some Nazi's believed hating Jews was fine because they reject Jesus. Some go as far as saying Jesus was killed because of them (don't worry, you don't get much logic from religious people regarding religion so don't bother bringing up that that is what Jesus wanted).

And Hitler christian? yes he was the kind of "turn the other cheek" kind of guy obviously

and you see crosses everywhere, like the VERY christian svastika 

The vast majority of Christians blatantly defy the teachings of "God" or "Jesus".
The ones closest to the teachings of "God" are routinely classified as bigots and hated by basically everyone.

22370

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Chris Hadfield and Barenaked Ladies Live : how about the delay?

« on: December 15, 2016, 12:24:42 PM »

There is no noticeable delay required for him being on the ISS.

so where do all the delays we spot come from during interviews if there is no delay? You're trying desesperately to make sense, changing your viewpoint constantly but it fools nobody i guess

You really aren't good at reading are you?
I said there is no noticeable delay required for him being on the ISS, not that there is no delay ever.

I am not changing my viewpoint.
I started out by saying that there is no noticeable delay due to him being on the ISS, and I have kept at that, while also providing you explanations for how they could do it if a delay was required.

The delays we get for interviews, even ones from the same city, not involving space at all, come from a variety of sources, primarily due to the shitty technology they use.
A large portion of it likely comes from buffering the signal. Like you said, this even happens when you skype someone.
Basically, to try and ensure integrity of the stream, they don't play it as soon as it arrives. Instead the buffer a section of it, typically a few seconds, such that if the stream is interrupted or delayed for any reason, that can be smoothed out with the buffering and appear continuous. But this comes at the cost of a delay, so it is unacceptable for real live streams like music performances. As such, they need to use different technology which either buffers much less (maybe a few frames), or not at all.

Now how about you cut the crap and tell us why there needs to be a delay?
Don't use some shitty TV interview as a reason. Tell us why there should be any.

22371

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the exact speed of the atmosphere up to space?

« on: December 15, 2016, 12:13:42 PM »

the velocities you gave me (thanks) never decrease, i'd like the real speed where it slowly decreases up until space

We gave you the real speeds.
Tell us why you think it slowly decreases up until space.

Even better, provide evidence of this slow decrease.

22372

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view

« on: December 15, 2016, 12:12:06 PM »

i did, and it's the same 

The same as what, you went back and forth a few times.

Do you accept that there is no rotational force at the pole trying to spin the pendulum?

22373

Flat Earth Debate / Re: what do you base it on?

« on: December 15, 2016, 12:11:26 PM »

Please explain to me how something orbits, without using math.

It does depend on exactly what you mean by math. Do you mean just numbers, or also other things?

There is some force pulling an object to the focus of its orbit while it also moves sideways.
This sideways movement combined with the force pushing it towards the centre results in a following a curved path around the focus.
An example is a ball on a string or a car doing donuts.

For planets, the focus is the sun, and the force is from gravity.

How's that?

22374

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ariane

« on: December 15, 2016, 12:35:56 AM »

Names are very important and poweful.

To think the names of Nasa's missions where chosen at random is ignorant IMO, we have as a species, been obsessed with names since very early on in our history, we give names their power but it's not to say the names don't have meaning and power in and of themselves.

I didn't say they were chosen at random, just that they aren't all that important and magically tied to Satan and so on.
The Apollo missions would have been just as important if they had any other name.

22375

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shap of the dome.

« on: December 15, 2016, 12:27:24 AM »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome

A dome (from Latin: domus) is an architectural element that resembles the hollow upper half of a sphere.

Bullwinkle is right to laugh at you.

Why not continue the quote, or look at other sections of the page. For example:
Called domical vaults (a term sometimes also applied to sail vaults),[49][50] polygonal domes,[51] coved domes,[52] gored domes,[53] segmental domes[54] (a term sometimes also used for saucer domes), paneled vaults,[55] or pavilion vaults,[56] these are domes that maintain a polygonal shape in their horizontal cross section.

So they just need to have some resemblance to the upper half of a sphere.

They don't need to be a perfect hemisphere.
They can even be parabolas.

22376

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Water as proof for a FE

« on: December 15, 2016, 12:16:22 AM »

Look, I understand all the shit trotted out for "evidence." IT's bull, always has been bull, and will remain bull.

Well, at least you finally admit the FE "evidence" is bull.

Water does not cling to a sphere, period, unless some special conditions are in place.

Yes, one of several, like surface tension, even if the sphere is just made out of water, gravity, etc.

In reality, it is a special condition that stops it, like very fast rotation which is capable of throwing it off, or some other body pulling it off the sphere.

In order to replicate, the "science," crowd claims a 0 g environment is necessary, yet at the same time claim what they are trying to replicate exists in a 1 g environment.

No. We don't.
Earth and the water that sticks to Earth are in a 0g environment. They are in free fall, falling around the sun and moon. (technically you could say there is some small g due to the moon, but that causes the tides).

So no, we say we need a 0g environment to demonstrate what happens in a 0g environment.

If you moved Earth so it was physically supported on top of a much more massive sphere such that the gravity from it is stronger than from Earth, then water wouldn't stick to it. Instead the water would fall of Earth onto this larger sphere.

Then they claim there is no up or down....you just have this ball sitting here in space with water on it. The reason water cannot run off the ball is there is nowhere for the water to run to...

No. We claim there is no preferred orientation of this sphere as it isn't sitting on another one or a table or the like.
If you would like, tell us what part of the globe Earth should be "up" and which should be "down" (in Cartesian co-ordinates), and explain why.
For Earth, there is an up and a down. Up is further from the centre, down is closer.

22377

Flat Earth Debate / Re: what do you base it on?

« on: December 15, 2016, 12:09:06 AM »

... this from someone who claims one need not know math to understand physics.

I would say that varies depending on the level of understanding, and if multiple factors are involved; even though physics is the application of math to explain how the physical world works.

22378

Flat Earth Debate / Re: geocentrism

« on: December 14, 2016, 01:53:07 PM »

If you are going down this route and throwing out modern science, you may as well throw out that universal speed limit as well.

22379

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ariane

« on: December 14, 2016, 01:50:58 PM »

i thought nazis were the bad guys...Why bring war criminals and monsters to work for you ? there is something deeply wrong with that
oh they killed thousands of thousands of jews but no problem we forgive you here is $10K, show us what you can do 

You are grouping a lot of people together here.
Where these scientists actually the bad guys?
Did they go and kill all the Jews, or even want them dead?
Or were they just scientists that lived in Germany and had basically no choice, or possibly a choice of do some science for us or die?

The actual Nazis were the bad (Christian) guys, but not everyone from Nazi Germany was a Nazi, not even all those that worked for the government.

22380

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ariane

« on: December 14, 2016, 01:47:40 PM »

In France, our space program is called Ariane, and they are up to Ariane 6 now.

We know the name of the space programs are important (Appollo is Appollyon for greeks and Abaddon for hebrews which is the other name of Satan)


Ariane in french is pronunced exactly as "aryan" in english.

We know that almost all the nazi scientists came to USA to form the NASA. "Nasa" is almost pronuned like "nazi" in french except the last vowel

do you need more clues?

Jeff

No.
The names aren't important.
The names are just something fancy to name the thing after.
Apollo has nothing to do with Satan. That is just your perverted blood cult trying to make everything non-Christian to be Satanic.
Ariane is named after Ariadne, as it is the french form of that name. Again, it is just a Greek godess. Nothing special.

As for the Nazis they were Christian, not Satanic.

Remember, in the Bible, Satan is the good one. God is an (imaginary) evil tyrant that no decent human being would ever worship except out of cowardice.