22651

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sky is pushing us as how sea is lifting up the ships

« on: December 06, 2016, 12:56:13 PM »

And just incase that last post was too long:

Tell me why air pressure pushes an object in mid air down even though the pressure is the same on all sides.

Just answer this, don't post a bunch of crap.

22652

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sky is pushing us as how sea is lifting up the ships

« on: December 06, 2016, 12:51:14 PM »

I really can't be arsed to answer you. Yeah I know, you'll shout that I can't answer and all that crap but the truth is I asked you to pose one question at a time and you simply cannot do it, so take your questions elsewhere or basically stick to your indoctrination rigidly, like you are hell bent on doing anyway.

I was responding to your post.
If you only want me to make one question at a time, then only make one piece of a response at a time.

Rather than bringing up loads of crap to try and overwhelm me and expecting me to just focus on one bit, bring up one thing.
It is quite arrogant of you to expect to be able to post a load of crap and not expect me to point out everything wrong with it.

If you just want one thing, then you post one thing.

Tell me why air pressure pushes things in mid air down, when there is roughly equal pressure exerted on all sides.

Don't post loads of crap, just bring it up one bit at a time.

22653

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Better lie

« on: December 06, 2016, 12:46:16 PM »

I will address only 3 things here as the rest is in an extremely endless repeat mode.

Yes, I need to keep repeating it because you are yet to honestly answer it.

a. That's not the meaning of special pleading.. Please look it up.

Yes. That is exactly what special pleading is.
One simple definition:

argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavourable to their point of view.

In this argument you are ignoring the aspect that what you say for your god applies to the universe as well.

But a better definition would be:

Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.

or

Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification.  Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.

That is exactly what you are doing.
You are applying different standards to your god and everything else.
You are asserting a rule (which I don't accept) and then making your god exempt from that rule without justifying the exemption (including justifying the rule).

So yes, that is special pleading.

Perhaps you should look things up before you go accusing others of being ignorant?

b. I don't need to justify a belief as much as you don't need to justify a made up big bang theory never proven with science. That's my point. You keep asking for proof of a "belief" system.. what part of that are you incapable of not understanding and I can maybe explain more?

If you state it as a fact, as part of an argument for the existence of a god, you do need to back it up, or at the very least I can expect you to and dismiss your argument as dishonest, irrational bullshit if you don't.

Just like if I was going to argue for the big bang, I would back it up (and yes, it has been proven with science, you ignoring the proof doesn't magically mean it hasn't).

I am not asking for proof of a belief. I am asking for proof of the claim you are using in a rational argument.

If you just want it to be a belief, that is fine, just don't make it part of a rational argument.
Have your belief in god and leave it at that.
Don't go asserting the atheist is dumb for questioning an argument based upon baseless beliefs.

c. According to my belief, I can absolutely say "everything else does" without the need to prove my belief since it does not contradict any scientific evidence.

And if you just want it as a belief, that is fine.
If you use it as part of an argument, you can't.
Then is just a baseless claim which we are fine to just completely dismiss as pure bullshit.
If you want to use it as part of an argument, you need to justify it.

The lack of proof does not automatically make a belief redundant.

Where did I ever indicate that?

It doesn't make it redundant. It makes it an unsubstantiated claim which has no place in an argument for the existence of an entity with those who do not share your beliefs.

2.

It was a simple question, is god part of everything? Not every creation or any crap like that, merely is god part of everything, i.e. the set of entities which exist?
Yes or no?

a. The question isn't complete. A yes or no answer can only be given to complete questions

So again you avoid it.
The question is complete.

b. What is everything? You explain "the set of entities which exist" - what is "the set of entities" referring to?

Really? You can't even tell what everything is?

A set is a collection or group.
An entity is a distinct thing, i.e. something which can be distinguished from something else. Your god is an entity. A "thing" doesn't require it to be a physical object or even existing in the universe.
So the set of all entities is referring to all that can be distinguished from something else, including parts of those things.

So it is nice and simple.
Is your god an entity that exists? If yes, it is part of everything.
If no, it doesn't exist as your god is an entity.

When you fail to understand something I have written again and again (up to and including your last post)

And there you go lying yet again.
I understood it before you went and tried to explain it.

and making arguments in which you ignore aspects that are not aligned to your point of view

No. I'm not ignoring anything. I am first focusing on the original argument which asserted everything (which would include any exiting god) requires a cause, to show the argument is fallacious.
I am also demanding you back up that aspect you are baseless believing.

There is a very big difference between ignoring something and demanding something be backed up.

On the other hand, you completely ignore the possibility that you are wrong and that something other than god may exist without cause and that a god may need a cause. You even reject the idea of the universe not needing a cause, even though the argument is of the same form as your god not needing a cause.
You reject/ignore all that because it doesn't fit with the basis of your argument.

(which by the way is the real meaning of special pleading)

Thus even by your own definition, you are committing special pleading as you are ignoring anything that goes against your view of god doesn't need a cause, but everything else does.

and I bring it up to highlight that is not calling you stupid. Calling you "stupid" would be calling you stupid. Don't assume anything someone doesn't clearly say and you'll live more happily.

Again, you do not need to directly call someone stupid to be indicating they are stupid.
You are repeatedly lying and claiming I cannot understand a simple concept. That is the same as calling me stupid.

Also, why don't you follow your own advice and stop lying about me and claiming things I have never clearly said?

My question now:
To us, before creation, there was only God who created everything. What was the beginning of everything in existence according to you?

No. Before I bother with your questions, you deal with mine.

At the very least deal with the first argument as presented.

Do you believe that everything (which would include your god) needs a cause? Yes or no?
If yes, then what is your gods cause?
If no, then why did you attack the atheist in the hypothetical argument, for following the argument, rather than the theist for asserting something you disagreed with?

Once you get that dealt with, you can deal with my next important question, which is why does your god not need a cause, but everything else does?

22654

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Power needed for satellites

« on: December 06, 2016, 12:22:59 PM »

My bad, I read "satellite" and "power" and my brain jumped to deep-space communication. 

According to Wikipedia, the power of the GPS at your receiver is a miniscule 8 attowatts.  That is 8 billionths of a billionth of a watt.  If we take the 50kW number and transmit it to the Continental US with a surface area of 86,977 billion square feet, that 50kW transmission is roughly 0.574 pico-watts per square foot, 718 million times more power than the 8 attowatts the receiver is looking for. 

The math above is VERY rough, back-of-an-envelope stuff and should not be considered accurate by any means, but for order-of-magnitude purposes it will serve.  So, that 50kW figure seems a bit high.

That's okay. Everyone makes mistakes.

A better calculation would be the area of half of Earth, and the area of a GPS reciever.
I found one that is 15 mm by 15 mm.

That means the area of a receiver is 0.000225 m^2.
The area of half the Earth (cross sectional) is 1.278E+14 m^2.
Also, the GPS reciever I found only needs 1.6 aW.

Thus using the 2kW figure, that gives us 1.56E-11 W/m^2
so our gps receiver takes 3.52E-15 W of power.
That is roughly 3520 attowatts. So that 2 kW gives plenty.

Using other math, we treat the GPS satallite as a point source.
Greater than the maximum distance to the reciever we have a distance of 20992383.37 m.
This gives us a sphere area of 5.53775E+15 m^2.
So for 2kW, this gives us 3.61157E-13 W/m^2.
So our GPS reciever would pick up 81 aW.
Still far more than the 1.6aW needed.

So yeah, it looks like 2kW of power works fine for GPS.

22655

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

« on: December 06, 2016, 12:04:30 PM »

If NASA was going to fake it and institute a delay in things like interviews, they would have the same setup used for everything else. The delay would either be pre-programmed or hardwired in.

i don't think so, if they are not too dumb (hum, NASA dumb?) , they'll vary the time delay. So yes it's definitively a possibility that they added delays to make believe they are far away, but that same delay disappear magically when they need it to be, give me a break

Jeff

Yes, they can vary the time delay, either randomly or systematically, and have that all programmed in.
But they would limit it.

Remember, they have no need to make it magically disappear if it is all a show.
If they had to remove it for this it would raise massive flags.

Like I said, the light time delay is tiny.
The delay is more likely going to be because of the interview itself.

The lack of a delay doesn't mean they aren't in space.

22656

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FES is a controlled opposition, is it not???

« on: December 06, 2016, 11:45:04 AM »

So, are you one of these trolls?

Because the crap you are spouting is pure bullshit.

And no, no FES would ever tell people the truth about flat Earth, as the truth is that the flat Earth doesn't exist.

22657

Flat Earth Debate / Re: so what about asteroids and meteorites.

« on: December 06, 2016, 11:43:36 AM »

It's quite simple, the claim the meteorites are held up in the dome by magic but sometimes fall and crash into us.

22658

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE VS GE moon landing

« on: December 06, 2016, 11:41:45 AM »

I accept that it happened because at the time it would have been easier to do it for real than to fake it.

22659

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Viable?

« on: December 06, 2016, 11:38:54 AM »

Hello

My idea is to launch a high power rocket from "antarctic" south of South America at an angle of 5°-15° from the ground, equip it with satellite live video feed and 4 cameras (the video feed would be split between those 4 cameras) or a 360° camera then we would finally know what is beyond the walls (the Iron Republic?).

is it a good idea? what are the problems that could be encountered?

thanks

Jeff

You wont find any wall.
You fill find Antartica, and if the rocket keeps going, depending on its trajectory. maybe New Zealand.

If you like, you can actually go to Antartica. Nothing is stopping you.

The other main issue is the temperature.

22660

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

« on: December 06, 2016, 03:14:25 AM »

well you know most people didn't notice that there are delays or didn't make the correlation with the live song beeing in-sync (did you?), that's how they pull-up every other trick to fool us

If NASA was going to fake it and institute a delay in things like interviews, they would have the same setup used for everything else. The delay would either be pre-programmed or hardwired in.

As such, the more rational explanation is that the delay in the interview is caused by the technology used for the interview and normal delays in conversation.

22661

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

« on: December 06, 2016, 03:09:44 AM »

So i was reading in the Q&A section and came across a rather interesting answer in a thread about the main reason why FEers are FEers.  (thread is from observer)  As i said i read something rather curious:

2. Water level
3. it is flat because all water seeks the lowest form of energy. And in its lowest form, without any outside impetus, the surface of water is flat. Always has been. Always will be and nobody has, can, or will, ever show anything any different.

The first reason (number 2) doesn't give much explanation as to how this would explain anything, so i'm gonne ignore it.

The second reason (number 3) is, how shall i say it, strange.  Whoever wrote this (originally) debunked his own argument, let me explain. 
The first part ("all water seeks the lowest form of energy") is correct, however not complete. The complete version: "Any type of matter (including water) seeks a state in which it has the lowest amount of energy IF this doesn't require a too high concentration of mass". 
Now saying this alone is misleading people, as this is only one of the rules of thermodynamics.  Another rule of thermodynamics is that: "Any type of matter seeks a state in which its mass has the lowest concentration IF this doesn't require too much energy."
(there are other laws of thermodynamics, but they're not important, google them if you want)
As everyone, hopefully, now understands these 2 laws will cause matter to seek a balanced state.


Now let's take this into practice for water.  Let's first look at a water molecule:

A water molecule is, as chemest call it, polar.  It has a slightly negative side (The side with oxygen) and a slightly positive side(s) (the one with the hydrogen atoms).
I hope everybody knows that positive charge and a negative charge attract each other.  This causes H₂O to form, what chemists call, hydrogen bonds. 

Now because of these bonds H₂O will have surface tension.  Because of this one can observe the following phenomena:

I know, a bad image. What you can hopefully see is that the water level reaches higher than the edge of the glass.  In other words there is more water in the glass then the volume of the glass. (For those who don't believe me, do it yourself. Take a glass fill it up and watch.)
Because of this there are certain insects that can walk on water.  Also because of this principle water will spontaneously form little bubbles when brought into an apolar mixture.
This is only 1 of the many forces that are applied to water at any given time. Seeing how many people don't know these forces exists one can, falsely, believe that water will always be leveled.


So we conclude that water will not always be perfectly level across the globe (earth, couldn't resist srry).

PS:"the surface of water is flat. Always has been. Always will be and nobody has, can, or will, ever show anything any different"
srry one beautiful example of how people should be cautious with the words always and never.

i think this efffect appears because the rim of the glass is perfectly smooth and leveled. I don't think it would happen in real life with mountains and irregularities. Plus it is really small, so if you measure it on a lake it would be totally irrelevant to the meassure of the curve if there is one

The issue is that the mountains act as a wall.
This shows that the water tries to minimise its surface. This will naturally produce a curve.

It is similar to how if you put a small amount of water on a non-wetting surface it will bead up into balls instead of forming random squares or stars.

22662

Flat Earth Debate / Re: 3 ways to fake Zero-G

« on: December 06, 2016, 03:07:54 AM »

sorry to not answer and explain but these videos will open your eyes as they did for me

is it not possible for the supposed hip harnesses to be iron rings that support the body with a not so powerful magnet under?

Jeff

No. It isn't the beginning of them. It is fundamental flaws in trying to levitate a wide variety of objects with it.

You need a force which is proportional to mass, regardless of any other attribute.

Really?
So you just accept the pseudoscience in those videos while rejecting reality?

This makes me think that you aren't interested in the truth and instead just want to be right about people lying to you.

Did you notice the inherent instability in the static electricity one?
The object needed to be in orbit to keep staying up, and wasn't even very stable.

well that's beginnings of technology , and every start can be hazardeous, that doesn't mean a team of high-end physicist didn't find a way to stabilize the whole process. Rejecting the whole technology because the beginnings are not 100% perfect is taking things a bit lightly

22663

Flat Earth Debate / Re: ULTIMATE PROOF AGAINST THE SPHERICITY OF THE EARTH

« on: December 06, 2016, 03:06:54 AM »

Now I will try asking you the nice simple questions again:

What is the bearing (or direction) to the sun, for someone standing on or slighly inside the arctic circle during their summer at the following times:
midnight
midday
morning
afternoon.

Or alternatively, if during the day the sun's motion is from left to right, starting east, heading south and then west, how then does moving the opposite direction result in it going to the north instead of back to the south?

Your continued avoidance of these questions doesn't help clarify anything either.
I'm not sure if you are too stupid to understand or you know you are spouting bullshit and thus are too dishonest to answer.

22664

Flat Earth Debate / Re: ULTIMATE PROOF AGAINST THE SPHERICITY OF THE EARTH

« on: December 06, 2016, 03:03:33 AM »

This is really the final nail in the coffin of your credibility (of any kind)!!!

Nope. But still makes me question if you are intentionally dishonest or just retarded.

My rod is not my reference point, a fixed arrows drawn on my desktop are my reference point, and you know that, but you are playing even more dumb than you really are

Really?
So you are using a reference point which isn't even in the situation?

Yes, I kind of did guess that, as you need it to pass your bullshit.

Try doing it honestly.

According to your UTTERLY IDIOTIC logic, when we come to the farthest point to the right then the sun has to be also farthest to the right, since the sun is on the right side of my rod, and when we reach the farthest point to the left then the sun has to be also farthest to the left, since the sun is on the left side of my rod...

Again, you are comparing completely different things.

If, from the north pole, facing the sun, the rod is furthest to the left, then if you are on the rod facing north, the sun will be furthest to the left. And the same applies for the right.
Notice how they are 2 different reference frames?
If you wanted to just use absolute position, ignoring the rotation, and instead having your person rotate to exactly match (in the opposite direction) the rotation of Earth, then there would be a movement. A whole 9 seconds of arc (or 1 200th of the sun's size).

You should shoot yourself in the empty head, you would do a favor to humanity, since you have UTTERLY failed as a human being!!!

The only thing I have failed with here is determining if you really are this stupid, or if you are just lying dishonest scum.

I have already dealt with the rest of your bullshit.

22665

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

« on: December 06, 2016, 02:54:08 AM »

yes you're right it's 1.2 seconds but it is enough to throw someone out of sync

And how much of that is just typical for conversations?

Try timing random conversations you have. Then measure the delay between the people.

Again, why would NASA allow it?

22666

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Power needed for satellites

« on: December 06, 2016, 02:52:31 AM »

well we have proofs that's the whole point! every statement done about heiocentrism can be beaten to the ground by FE or concave earth or whatever

about satellites, i don't totally believe they do not exist, there are balloons that do about the same thing, but they are not in "space" and they are not "satellites"

You have it the wrong way around.
We have proofs that Earth is round, and every statement about Earth being flat or concave can be beaten to a pulp by reality (RE).

The power requirements would be the same.

22667

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Power needed for satellites

« on: December 06, 2016, 02:51:31 AM »

the size of the receiver disk doesn't matter in the context of this energy debate. either satellites meet the energy needs to send data to earth or they don't. honestly i don't know all that much about the energy needs of sending data down from space in the form of radio waves, but i have yet to see any reason to doubt the RE model and it's accepted by the vast majority of the world's population including 100% of the earth's geologists (geology is the study of the earth) with PhDs (i'm sure you could find one or two geologists sitting in their basements with tin foil hats convinced that aliens invented tectonic shift, but definitely none with PhDs). and probably upwards of 99.99% of the rest of the world's scientific community.

that being said we could all be wrong, however you must agree that to say that the whole world is wrong about any one thing is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. so if you want to say "satellites aren't possible and thus fake and thus the earth is flat" you need more proof for that claim than "the dishes aren't big enough".

if you actually have evidence proving satellites don't exist or that the earth is flat then for God's sake write a paper and collect your nobel prize.

Yes, this is all true (and I am on your side).
But in the energy debate, it is the smallest receiver (or the most energy flux demanding one) which matters.
Showing a massive satellite dish is thus dishonest.

I already have a few papers, still working on the Nobel prize.

22668

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sky is pushing us as how sea is lifting up the ships

« on: December 06, 2016, 02:49:24 AM »

You are yet to explain why "air pressure" pushes some things down, but other things up.

It's simply down to the density of the object pushing into the atmosphere above. That object displaces it's own density/mass.
The same applies to water. You displace your own mass. You understand this.
On Earth you compress the air you are stood/laid in. That air is placed back onto you, as in it pushes back against you .

This does not explain it at all.
Why do objects displace their own mass?
From where are they displacing it and where is it going?
Or to put it in other words, why does it displace it in one particular direction?
Why does it have anything to do with density/mass rather than area?
After all, pressure is a force per unit area, not per unit mass.

This makes sense in a gravitational well, where gravity is forcing you down. It doesn't make sense when it is meant to be air pressure, as in the air, you feel that the same from all sides. (yes, there is a tiny difference, but that would push you up).

It basically squeezes you and keeps you down because your body is made up of more dense particles than what is directly above you and so you cannot overcome them.

No. If my particles are more dense I can easily overcome the air. And guess what? I can, by jumping, at which point the air pushes in from everywhere, but I still fall down, WHY?

However if you were to be able to expand your body to mammoth proportions...and I mean mammoth proportions, you would eventually be squeezed up because you molecules in your body would be expanded beyond the area where the dense atmosphere has hold and so you get squeezed up.
That's why helium balloons float up.

Again, it isn't the molecules which expand.
Again, this would increase my area, so why would I be pushed down less?

I'll answer this next one and then you can carry on one question at a time from there.
You can't even explain why the air stays put rather than just flying off to space.

It's stacked into a dome and the dome keeps the atmosphere under pressure, because the dome is frozen against a true vacuum.

Ok there's your first two questions answered.

Not really. You only answered one question.
And that one was more of a baseless assertion, but it is at least an explanation so I will accept that as part of your model (but proof of its existence would be much better).

So I will ask again, why does it force you down (lets just focus on that, rather than asking why some things go up instead)?

Your indoctrinated system is a ball with a supposed thin circling atmosphere that apparently loses hydrogen and helium, etc to space...somehow and yet it also keeps a pressure for some reason. How?

No. Our system based upon reality.
It is loosing these gasses at a very slow rate and is getting bombarded with gas from the sun at the same time.

As for the extreme low pressure environment of the so called vacuum container you mention. It's still the same answer.
You place an object in it and that object is still being pushed to the deck as it pushes up.
Note an object expanding as the pressure is reduced.
The low pressure area has to be filled by expansion of matter that still stacks from the bottom up.

No. The object doesn't' expand if it is a solid object like a steel ball.
And again, why the bottom. Why not the walls?

22669

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Better lie

« on: December 06, 2016, 02:35:15 AM »

Here is an example of your dishonesty and not actually addressing the issue:

THEIST: Everything has a cause. The universe too must have had a cause. That cause is God.

ATHEIST: Well what caused God then?

THEIST: God is uncaused. The existence of the universe requires a cause. God does not.

ATHEIST: But if you’re going to make an exception to the rule that everything has a cause, why not make the universe the exception? Why do you posit the existence of a further entity–God–for which we have no proof? Why can’t the universe itself be uncaused?

THEIST: Er … because?

Sounds a bit like FE reasoning!

I'm sure atheists are not dumb enough to say the above. Your logic actually ends on number 2

THEIST: Everything has a cause. The universe too must have had a cause. That cause is God.

ATHEIST: Well what caused God then?

THEIST: If something caused God then that wouldn't be God.

Notice how rather than "attack" the hypothetical theist that simply claims everything has a cause (which would include God), you instead attack the hypothetical atheist which asks what caused God.
You even go so far as suggesting that would be a dumb thing to do.

(yet claim to not be calling or implying people are stupid, while I clearly indicate that isn't a dumb thing to do).

If you wanted to be honest (with my understanding of what you have said), you would instead go off at the theist, and say the logic ends before line 1 as not everything has a cause as god doesn't.

Also, do you notice how (excluding leaving out the special pleading at the start) you are doing exactly what this theist is doing?

Then I go to the next step of the atheist, pointing out that is dishonest special pleading that doesn't actually solve anything and that this god merely pushes the problem back.

You assert that everything that exists (other than god) has a cause, and that the cause of the universe is god (at least with that implication).

When questioned, you just assert that everything except god needs a cause, and attack people accusing them of being ignorant.

And instead of "er because" you go "its a belief" as if that somehow makes it better.
It doesn't. It means you know it is unsubstantiated and thus should have no part in a rational argument.

22670

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Better lie

« on: December 06, 2016, 02:31:16 AM »

So possibly the questions can be reworded as (you work out the answers):
1 - Is God part of "space-time"? - If no, . . . . ,
2 - Does everything in "space-time" have a cause? - If no, . . . . ,
3 - If you answer yes to the above that means God is the probable cause.

Just a thought.

Which again would be avoiding the argument.
This is to specifically address the argument that "Everything which exists has a cause"

A bigger issue (from the theist perspective) is that the universe is not part of space-time nor is it in space-time.

As such, this leaves open the possibility that the universe itself was the first cause.

22671

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Better lie

« on: December 06, 2016, 02:28:44 AM »

That means you believe the first line of the argument is false.

No.

The first line of the argument was that everything has a cause, not everything except God.
As such, you believe the first line of the argument is false.

Only God (the creator) exists without cause. Everything "after" God has a cause. There is no concept according to Theists for "before God"

Again, this is special pleading.
You have accepted that things can exist without cause.
This means you need to justify why things need a cause, you can't simply say everything else does.

According to some, there is no concept of before the universe, as time began to exist at the big bang.
So how was there a "before" the big bang in which a god could exist to create the universe?

Do you notice how your arguments for a god being special also work for the universe?
This is why it is dishonest special pleading.
Your argument merely pushes the problem back and then you pretend it doesn't apply to your god.

If you are going to baselessly assert that the universe needs a cause, I see no reason why I shouldn't assert your god does as well.
If you are going to assert your god doesn't need a cause, I see no reason why I shouldn't assert the universe doesn't.

The simple reality any excuse that works for a god has a corresponding excuse that works for the universe.
Any reason the universe needs a cause has a corresponding reason that works for your god.

1. No. God is not part of creation.

I didn't ask if he was a part of creation. I asked if he was part of everything.

This is the biggest deal with Atheists who simply cannot comprehend the concept of Creator and Creation.

No. This is the biggest deal with theists. Rather than trying to honestly and rationally answer questions (which would destroy their argument) they resort to some bullshit to distract from it, typically by making their god special.
It was a simple question, is god part of everything? Not every creation or any crap like that, merely is god part of everything, i.e. the set of entities which exist?
Yes or no?

2. Yes. Every creation has a cause. God is not part of His creation.

Prove the universe is a creation.
And again, this doesn't answer the question.
Does EVERYTHING have a cause. If not, you refute the first line of the argument and thus need to justify why the universe needs a cause but your god doesn't.

3. I answered No and Yes respectively meaning your question flow came to an incorrect conclusion.

No. You avoided my questions.
You did not tell me if EVERYTHING has a cause (which if you negate you refute the first line of the argument presented, and would otherwise need to justify why your god doesn't have a cause but the universe does).
And you did not tell me if your god is part of everything.
You didn't answer either question.

This is why I say you simply do not understand the concept of "God"

Yes. This is why you say it. Because if you admit that I do understand it you are left with no argument.
So instead of even trying to honestly and rationally refute my argument, you need to attack and insult me to try and pretend I am just too stupid and thus shouldn't be listened to.

1. "everything" = creation and creator cannot be part of its creation. A "thing" cannot create itself even according to you.

Again, I am not asking if it is a creation, merely a part of everything, i.e. does it exist? Is it an entity which is part of the set of entities which exist?

Repeating an invalid statement constantly will not "magically" make it valid.

I know. So why do you keep on doing it?
Likewise, continually rejecting a valid statement wont make it valid.

Are you kidding me? ALL I've done it addressed your statement trying to correct the misconception and invalid approach in the initial argument.

There you go again.
You treat me like a moron, insulting me and ignoring my objections.
You are yet to actually address my objections.

Your way to correct the UNSOUND approach in the initial argument (I am assuming you honestly think it is unsound as you think your god (which is part of everything) can exist without cause, and have stated that not everything that exists needs a cause, which means the premise is false, but yes, it is also invalid as it just baselessly asserts god is the cause), with an equally unsound, yet far more dishonest argument where you assert that everything except your god needs a cause.
That is not addressing my objections at all.

An honest and rational way of addressing my objections would be to admit the argument was wrong and that not everything needs a cause and then try to make a different argument where you claim everything except god needs a cause and justify why that is the case.

If you do not allow something to be corrected or aligned properly on a disputed matter

But that is the issue. You have no interest at all in correction. Instead you just want to "properly align" me to your incorrect, dishonest special pleading and accepting pure bullshit as a sound argument.
The other thing you are trying to do is "correct" something that is already correct. That isn't correction. That is being condescending and treating me like a moron.

I have clearly indicated I understand, but you insist on acting like I am a moron that doesn't understand at all.

then how is it possible to find the root cause of the disagreement and in turn a "solution" in the form of a point to agree to disagree?

By acting honestly and rationally and actually addressing what I am saying rather than repeatedly treating me like a moron.
For example, instead of saying atheists are morons that don't understand what it means to be God, say the argument is stupid and doesn't understand what it means to be God, that the first line of the argument is fundamentally flawed and that not everything needs a cause.

Then you would be able to proceed to the next step, where you make your dishonest special pleading, and you can try to justify that.

So how about we try that?
Do you agree with the first statement in the argument as presented? "That everything that exists needs a cause?"
Yes or no?

Not once have I called you stupid or indicated anything of the sort.

BULLSHIT!!
You repeatedly accused me of being unable to understand a concept which is quite simple, even though I made it quite clear I did.
That is acting like I am stupid.

Saying you don't understand something is pointing to a problem which you seem to be in strong denial over in which case is there a point continuing?

If you don't want to be honest and accept that I already know that and actually address the issues I have raised, there is very little point in continuing.
Where have I ever denied the point you are trying to "correct"?
Was it where I explictly stated that I understand it and that it doesn't magically get the theist off the hook

Incorrect = wrong
Invalid = lacks validity in context
e.g. "The sun is near Earth". It's valid if in context with distant stars or if compare to the sun's distance from Pluto. But invalid if seen from Flat Earth theories.

incorrect = wrong.
invalid (logical) = conclusion doesn't follow from premises, and thus wrong.
invalid (colloquial) = does not meet required standards/does not apply.
unsound = either invalid, or based upon false premises.
ambiguous/confusing = lacks critical contextual information to determine if it is true or false.

You see God as a physical object/being.

No. I don't. I see your god as a fictional being. An entity that allegedly exists outside of what we think of as this universe (i.e. the heavens and Earth).
Where do you think I have indicated anything else?
Where do you think I have indicated that I see God as a physical entity?

That's the underlying issue and why it's not possible for you to grasp what I'm saying.

No. The underlying issue is that I understand completely and am capable of seeing through your bullshit.
So rather than address my objections, which would show your position to be flawed, you need to resort to repeatedly insulting me and acting like I am a moron to avoid responding to by objections.

You don't necessarily have to be a moron to not understand. It's your method of thinking and the way you've been programmed to not believe and no amount of explanations can change that until you differentiate the concept yourself.

Intelligence relates to your ability to learn knew things.
If an explanation is good, you should be able to understand it. If you cannot understand it, then you are stupid or the explanation is horrible.
For a simple concept like that, almost any explanation would do.
Thus if someone is unable to understand such a simple concept, they would be a moron.
Saying someone can't understand is insulting their intelligence.

I haven't been programmed to not believe. I was raised a Christian until I realised it was bullshit.

And this confirms my previous sentence.

No. It doesn't.
It means I am not accepting you making your god special. This doesn't mean I am rejecting the idea of god existing without cause.
All it means is I am not just going to baselessly accept that everything except your god needs a cause.
Instead, if you assert your god doesn't need a cause, I see no reason to think the universe needs one and thus see no need for your god.

1. Why does God exist rather than nothing?
2. If you wish to simply assert that it just does, then the same can be done for the universe.
3. If you wish to appeal to an attribute of God, then how does that make it exist without it already existing and why does God have that attribute?
4. It has the same problems as the universe, but made even worse due to it begin a sentient entity.

I numbered the above quote for reference:
1. Belief/Faith - science cannot prove or disprove what existed before nothing as technically that's a loop if something existed before nothing then it wasn't nothing and so on...

This doesn't answer my question at all.
Saying there was nothing before or before doesn't apply doesn't even come close to saying why a god exists.
Saying you believe god exists doesn't explain it either.
I am not asking you about what existed before nothing, but why your god exists.

I am not asking why you believe in a god, but why god exists rather than nothing.
And no, you can't appeal to your definition of god being uncaused either as that would then become if god exists, god exists or if god exists, god necessarily exists, still not explaining why it exists rather than nothing.

2. So Theists believe the universe has always existed?

I assume you mean atheists?
If so, it varies.
Some believe it has always existed in some form or another, either as what we know of as this universe, or some higher multiverse.
Others are fine with it existing without cause from nothing, akin to how a virtual particle pops into existence.

3. Belief/Faith - our answer to origins. Don't forget that Atheists have theories which has never been replicated or recreated in a lab or otherwise making it a "theory" similar to belief. Except we blatantly call it a belief yet you call it a fact/law?

Again, your belief is not an explanation.
You have not even tried to address the issue.
Science has nothing to do with atheism.
It is just that a rational, scientific person would naturally tend to atheism.

Very few things in science are called facts. The things which are akin to beliefs are hypotheses.
Laws are simply mathematical relations. Calling it a law has nothing to do with it being true or not.
The things which are actually theories (but this is complicated by things like string theory being called theory even though it is just a hypothesis) have plenty of evidence backing them up.
On the other hand, all you have is faith.

4. Not made worse at all. It's actually almost an identical problem on both sides.

Yes. Almost identical. But still worse for you.
In an atheistic worldview, starting with the big bang/singularity, we have a simple singularity. A collection of matter and energy, and a few simple laws.

For the theistic worldview, they have a far more complex entity. Rather than a collection of matter and energy, it is a sentient being.

You tried. But clearly failed using false logic which was answered every single step of the way. I cannot help your denial sorry.

No. I didn't fail at all, nor did I use false logic.

You dismissed an argument which was made in the exact same form as yours.
You used a definition to appeal to something being impossible and thus dismissing the idea of it being possible to assert your god couldn't be created and thus doesn't need a creator.
I did the exact same thing, just using the universe instead of a god, but rather than accept that, you just say I could simply be ignorant and what I think is impossible could actually be possible.

Why then does the same not apply to your god?
Why then, could it not be you simply think it is impossible for your god to have a creator while it actually does have one?

No special pleading. I called it a "Belief" continuously. Why do you attribute such pretenses when not once anything of the sort was claimed?

If it is used in an argument it is special pleading as you are treating one thing special.
In fact, by it being a belief, it is worse.
If it was a fact that you could justify and explain rather than a belief, it wouldn't be special pleading.

If you were just stating your beliefs rather than trying to make or defend an argument, then it wouldn't be special pleading either.

You are saying the argument is fine because your god is special and doesn't need a cause while everything else does.
That is special pleading until you justify why everything except your god needs a cause.
You can't use a general case of something needing a cause, unless you can show that applies to everything except your god.
You can't just use your god not needing a cause as that doesn't show everything else does.

Until you do so, making your god special to compared to things like the universe is special pleading.
For example, you asserting that the argument is fine when fixed to make god special, or you saying god doesn't push the problem back because god is special.
Yes, you didn't use those words, but the meaning is the same.

Dishonesty? If you say so. You're entitled to your personal conclusion of my replies and attempts to answer
Attack? Giving an answer to an attack which you quoted earlier is not an attack. It's more like you know... "defense"

Yes, I am entitled to my conclusions, especially when you do it so well here.
I made an argument for why the universe doesn't need a cause. That is an answer to an attack. That is an argument, an argument which you were happy to attack.
Rather than simply accept that it is impossible for the universe to have a cause like you want me to do for your god, you instead attacked the argument and suggested we just don't know enough and that it could be possible.

So who is dishonest now calling a defense an "attack", a belief "special pleading", changing meanings and concepts, failing to understand a concept and belief and attributing false pretenses to affirm your own misunderstanding?

The one calling an attack a defence, the one pretending special pleading is just a belief and perfectly fine to use in an argument, the one continually avoiding the argument, the one repeatedly accusing someone of not understanding when they made it clear, and so on.
I'll give you a clue, it isn't me.

Well at least you understand a theist's viewpoint without realising it

No. I do understand it. And I do realise that. I made that quite clear from the start.
You just need to pretend I don't so you can continue insulting me rather than addressing the points I made.

This will be the last long post if you still fail to address the points. After this, if you still refuse to debate honestly I will do it point by point.

22672

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Power needed for satellites

« on: December 06, 2016, 01:04:54 AM »

You would be surprised how little power your transmitter requires when your receiving dish looks like this:

That is quite dishonest.
What does it look like for an omnidirectional GPS receiver?

22673

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Moon is a Wrecking Ball.

« on: December 06, 2016, 01:03:54 AM »

If the Earth's gravity holds the Moon in place when it is away from the path that the Earth is traveling and keeps it from flying away out into space, then why is it when the Moon is in the Path that the Earth travels the Earth's gravity combined with it's speed doesn't bring the Moon crashing into Earth, or at the very least bring it in much closer?

Like I said, the moon is (then) travelling faster than Earth.

As it pulls into Earth, this speed, with the combined gravity of the sun and Earth result in the moon moving ahead of Earth rather than crashing into it.

22674

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

« on: December 06, 2016, 12:44:12 AM »

How much ENERGY is needed to keep the water curved around the [real] globe, inderstanding water [can] stick to a spinning ball?

None. Even without gravity, water would act to form a ball.
It is called hydro-static equilibrium.
The surface of water is not an outside impetus. It is a limit of the water.

Water will reduce its energy by reducing its surface area to volume ratio.
The 3D shape that has the lowest surface area to volume ratio (you can't use a container as that is an outside impetus), is that of a sphere.
If it is spinning (which would be an outside impetus), then that will distort the sphere due to how angular momentum works, forming it into an oblate spheroid.

As such, without the influence of gravity, spinning water will naturally form an oblate spheroid.

What makes you say water can't stick to a spinning ball? It is held down by gravity just like everything else.

22675

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

« on: December 06, 2016, 12:39:51 AM »

Some desperate answers.
The real answer is that Hadfield isn't sat up in space with his silly guitar, singing songs in unison.

That's about as far as I want to argue about this because it really isn't worth the effort of trying to fend off the frenzied answers by the usual suspects.

No. Some desperate attempts at pretending there is a massive problem.

If NASA was going to have a faked time delay to fake the ISS, they wouldn't allow something like this.

If you don't want to defend your BS claims, don't make them.

The real answer is that he is in space.

22676

Flat Earth Debate / Re: end of FE?

« on: December 06, 2016, 12:36:29 AM »

To discuss its viability the first thing to figure out is the stress on the cable and see if that is practicle.

I can't easily do the math off the top of my head, so I'm not going to try here. It also varies depending on the specific cable geometry (e.g do you have a cylindrical cable, with the same cross section all the way, or do you design it so it tapers to a point and have it much thicker in the middle (the more viable option in terms of strength).

The key thing to remember is that this cable must be able to hold its entire "weight" (i.e. the force acting on the cable due to gravity and the rotation of Earth), all the way from Earth to a geostationary/geosynchronous orbit, which has a height of 35786 km (which means we need a cable that is 35786 km long, this is the second issue, but is more of a challenge to meet and thus isn't the most important as it is just a case of dealing with a massive cable rather than physical limitations which can't be overcome, and gives us an idea of where to start). The part which makes the math hard is that the weight decreases as you go up and the variable cross section.

The force acting on a particular piece of cable is given by:
F=m*(-GM/r^2+omega^2*r). (taking note that a negative force means being pulled to Earth, a positive force means being flung away).

So lets simplify it a bit.
Lets say we have a constant cross section, A.
We will also make a rough estimate by going half way and using that as the force for the entire cable.
That makes our r for the above equation 24271100 m, and thus the force is -0.548276631*mass N/kg.
We also know the length (l) required (35786 km or 35786000 m).
We can let the density be p (can't be bothered typing rho).
The total mass would be A*l*p.

Thus the total force would be -19620627.52*A*p N m/kg (which can also be taken to mean tension).
To find the stress, that would be the force divided by the area, so -19620627.52*p N m/kg.

(for a sanity check, the force should be in units of N, while the stress should be in units of N/m^2 (or Pa), and the units of density can be kg/m^3.
Using the above, ignoring values and just subbing in units, for force we get m^2 (kg/m^3) N m/kg, after cancelling this gives us N.
For stress, we have (kg/m^3) N m/kg. After cancelling that gives us N/m^2.)

So this means the tensile strength, in Pa, needs to be 19620627.52 times as much as the density, in kg/m^3.
Another option is to look at the speficic strength/stress, which is the stress divided by the density.
This means we need a specific stress of 19620627.52 N m/kg. This can also be expressed as 19620.62752 kN m/kg or 19.62062752 MN m/kg

Some values of this for common materials (rather than list full units, I will just put down the prefix, e.g. k or M):
Steel - 61.1k
Nylon - 69l
Titanium - 76k
Titanium alloy - 260k
Alluminium alloys - 115k
Spider silk - 1.069M
Carbon fibre - 2.4M
Kevlar - 2.5M

So no common material comes close (and i'm fairly confident this is a significant underestimate, as if you just look at it at 10000 km up, if you use the force at that point and the cable below that point, that alone gives you a requirement of 14 M. For the same thing at 1000 km up, it gives 7 M).

The only materials known (at least outside of very niche groups) which come close are things like carbon nanotubes, with a specific strength of 46 M.
However, that is typically single carbon nano-tubes. When you combine it into a rope, that drops. However there are also imperfections in the process.
The theoretical tensile strength is 300 GPa, but typically achieved values are closer to 60 GPa, but when made into ropes it drops to single digit GPa.

So in order for it to be possible, we need to get a lot better at making very long carbon nanotubes.

22677

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sky is pushing us as how sea is lifting up the ships

« on: December 05, 2016, 02:28:45 PM »

I have been using my own words, and you're not answering my clear question. I didn't say anything about a helium or hydrogen Ballon, what's that got to do with a ball falling inside of a sub? You don't wanna use the term "center of the earth", OK. That's fine. We'll call it the ocean floor. Now. A sub, underwater. You drop a ball while inside the sub, and it always falls toward the direction of the ocean floor, no matter the orientation of the sub - 90 degrees turned or even upside down. The air pressure is constantly exerted outward in all directions, yet the ball always falls toward the ocean floor.
Why. Can you answer this without deflecting, changing the subject, or answering with a question?

I'll answer this question when you clearly answer the same question as to why you think it happens.

I have. Your turn.

22678

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

« on: December 05, 2016, 02:27:39 PM »

It's quite simple. They aren't using the same timing for the 2.

If this was going to be a problem do you really think NASA would allow such a thing to air (assuming they were just faking it)?

Interviews with people on Earth can often have massive delays. It's just the shitty technology they use.

The ISS is at roughly 400 km.
The speed of light is 299792458 m/s, or 299792.458 km/s.
That means it would have a delay due to the transit time of roughly 1.3 ms.
If they had to get it from the opposite side of Earth, then that would be roughly 40 ms.

So no, the light time delay is not going to be significant.

Seriously, look at the delay between the interviewer and Houston.

People rarely start talking straight after the other person finishes.

22679

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

« on: December 05, 2016, 02:20:38 PM »

They are just focusing on a simplified view, rather than minor disturbances.

At the medium scale, what humans are used to dealing with, like pools, and ignoring things like wind and tides, the dominating factor is gravity. Water will get as far into the gravitational potential well as it can without it needing to displace denser objects.

At this medium scale, this produces a surface which is flat, but that is simply because the curvature is too small.

When you take this to larger scales, with a point source of gravity and thus a gravity well where the contours are spheres, water will adopt a spherical shape, which is what it does on Earth (again, simplifying a bit).

This is often quoted with things like curvature, and how if you stand at the nile delta, the source of the water there is much lower than you due to the curvature of Earth and thus it would need to flow up hill.
But in reality, as it is further from the source of gravity, that "lower" than you is a higher potential and thus the water will flow to the lower potential.

22680

Flat Earth Debate / Re: ULTIMATE PROOF AGAINST THE SPHERICITY OF THE EARTH

« on: December 05, 2016, 02:15:05 PM »

Now then, would you like to try to be rational and honest for once.

Tell us the direction (bearing) you would expect the sun to be at at certain times.

Or tell us how you think the sun moving from right to left will make it go from west to north to east.

Can you do either?

Or would you prefer to end this distraction with your ignorance and dishonest and instead go back to the original argument, with your dishonest numbers and missing sections of mountains or mountains being at the wrong height clearly indicating Earth can't be flat?