Show Posts

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


Messages - JackBlack

Pages: 1 ... 755 756 [757] 758 759 ... 767
22681
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 :D 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.

22682
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.

22683
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Better lie
« on: December 14, 2016, 01:41:54 PM »
I have read your answers, but again, every time you avoid answering the question directly.

I answered directly. Or does directly mean something else in your language?
So which one was the direct answer? The one where you answered the question as no, but then clarified the question to mean something else, or the one where you changed the question and then answered?

I want you to answer the question as asked, using the same terminology as the hypothetical argument which was presented.

"Everything" is relative. "Do you own everything?" when asked in context of a subject or frame of reference could be answered as "Yes" for example when playing Monopoly if asked, "Do you own everything" would mean every card. It wouldn't mean do you own everything in existence or everything on the board including the dice and pieces. "Relative" - So to get an answer "directly" you need to ask in context and clarify (which you did) and according to the clarification you gave before, I answered "Yes" according to your clarification. Then you get all butt hurt because the answer stopped you in your tracks to make a point. You're clearly frustrated because I'm actually addressing every detail and for some reason in your books that's "bullshit"
Yes, everything can be relative to the context. The only context which makes sense for this argument is everything meaning all that exists.
If you restrict it to everything created it becomes a meaningless tautology.

If this ambiguity was going to be such a big problem, again, why attack the atheist, why not attack the hypothetical theist that said such an ambiguous term?

But I shall take your answer to be yes and move on.

God is part of everything.
So question 2:
Does everything need a cause? (I assume you realise you don't need to get the ambiguity out of the way again and "everything" should be fine as the context is made clear by the hypothetical argument and prior clarification)

22684
Breaking news...people interested in Earth shape resolve spend most of their time in the study and evidence gathering phase to confirm their claim. Those who know the Earth to be flat know so because of that process.  I, for example, did not approach FE individuals demanding proofs.  Instead, I listened and learned and followed the path to truth.
No. No one knows Earth to be flat as it isn't flat.
If you didn't ask for evidence then you are not interested in truth.
Truth isn't a path where you just blindly follow and accept whatever crap people say.
Have you tried doing the same for RET?

I approached it wanting evidence (as there is plenty that Earth is round) and wanting answers to my questions. 2 thing where are yet to be provided.

You can do the same.  For real, I can not understand why a person who would extensively study the Earth shape question would land on the concept that it is *round.  I could say "show me your proof" but I fear you would post up the same old/same old evidence already debunked.
Because that is what the evidence shows.
By "same old/evidence already debunked" do you mean the plentiful yet to be debunked evidence which shows Earth to be round?

The only side I have seen continually providing crap which is continually debunked is the FE side.

There are simply far too many things which work on a round Earth which don't work at all on a flat Earth.

We know that not everyone can see the sun at the same time.
We know that there are different time zones and people can circumnavigate Earth, both around the north pole and around the south pole.
If Earth were flat, this wouldn't be the case. Everyone should see the sun at the same time, in order to produce time zones or differences, the sun would need to be so close it isn't funny. But that would then require massive changes in apparent size which simply aren't observed. You also have the problem of the southern hemisphere and northern hemisphere acting the same in quite a few regards, or the same but opposite.
For example, during summer, as you go away from the tropics (so north in the northern hemisphere or south in the southern hemisphere), you get longer days. But with the commonly promoted FE model, that simply doesn't work for the south, unless you make the shape of the spotlight sun completely ridiculous, almost as if you are projecting a sphere onto a circle and the spotlight sun is a circle on that sphere.... Otherwise it makes no sense, visible from different distances depending on the time of year.
And of course, the numbers given simply don't add up if you try and determine its position.
Depending on what points you take you get a different altitude.
Depending on what points you take you get a different direction.

A nice simple example is the equator at the equinox. It rises due east, passes directly overhead and then sets due west. This means it needs to pass in a straight line from East to West, but instead the FE model follows a curve.
It requires the sun to be in 2 places at once.

The sun should never appear to set below the horizon on a flat Earth, especially not with mountains casting shadows on clouds from below, but it does it all the time in reality.

And so much more.

And these problems don't just apply to the sun, they also apply to the stars and satellites like the moon.

The FE can't explain the phases of the moon, or eclipses.

Loads of evidence which people use to try and prove Earth is flat, such as photos showing alleged missing curvature actually shows Earth can't be flat due to large section of mountains being missing, and mountains not showing up in the expected height order for a flat Earth.

So no, those who honestly and rationally try to determine the shape of Earth will conclude it is round (or a globe) because that is what the evidence shows. They find the Flat Earth idea to be severely lacking in explanatory power for so many things and instead find excuse after excuse for why things work that way, throwing physics out the window.

22685
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« on: December 14, 2016, 01:01:18 PM »
Quote from: so
karul link=topic=68500.msg1847100#msg1847100 date=1481565183
I await your Nobel Prize.
i received both my brain and the nobel prize yestereday in the same package
So I take it you will be reading back through all these posts and making a comment about how you think it should work now with your new found brain and prize?

22686
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Hidden truth ! Light doesn't spread out in space !
« on: December 14, 2016, 01:00:20 PM »
If having it all at once is too much for you, feel free to pick one point to deal with at a time.

If you like, you can start with backing up your claim that particles can't pass through one another.

22687
lookup table master!  ;D

that doesn't give me the actual speeds of the atmosphere.

The actual speeds vary due to winds and other atmospheric effects.

But it has been explained to you how they, on average, stick to Earth and why you don't need it to slow down so it is stationary w.r.t space.

22688
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Water as proof for a FE
« on: December 14, 2016, 12:55:40 PM »
Do you have any shred of honesty or decency at all?

I said there is up and down.
Up is further away from the centre of Earth.
Down is closer to the centre of Earth.

I never said there is no up and down.
I said up and down in Cartesian coordinates makes no sense in describing a spherical Earth.
You need to use polar coordinates.

So yes, there is up and down, but water is (ignoring some rare cases involving pressures) always on the top (or upper) surface of something, not the lower one.

Again, there is plenty of evidence to support Earth is round and that water can stick to it, even though it is spinning.

Do you have any evidence or rational argument at all to suggest that it can't, or just more of the same childish, dishonest bullshit?

22689
Often, the evidence FEers use to try and claim Earth can't be round, or can't have the radius claimed actually shows Earth can't be flat, such as pictures showing large sections of mountains missing, something that is impossible on a flat Earth, or showing a few mountains, with their height order wrong in the photo, again, something impossible on a flat Earth (depending on vantage point). But these make perfect sense on a round Earth.

FET cannot explain anything without completely destroying everything else.

If you think you have proof Earth is flat, provide it.

And no, a belief being held for a long time, isn't proof.

22690
REers are compelled to support their claims by attempting to find weakness in those who support FET. Hence, their previous claim that FET is based only on religious precedence. This exposes a particular weakness in RE methodology. 

RET is not derived from a process conducive to truth and FET is.  Round Earth believers peek around corners (scientific method) attempting to find Earth shape evidence instead of looking straight-on into truth like that of FEers.
No. REers are those that have been taught the truth. Those debating it are capable of backing up Earth being round.
FEers on the other hand are reduced to attacking the round Earth and inventing fantasy nonsense to explain away all the issues.
They cannot rationally defend a flat Earth at all, other than by saying it looks flat which is pure bullshit.

Yes, REers (the rational ones defending it) use the scientific method to discover the truth. They analyse things and think them through, rather than just saying Earth looks flat so it must be.

You are not looking at the truth straight-on. You are looking at it with tunnel vision, only seeing a tiny part and then assuming that must be true. It is like looking at a mirror laying on the ground, seeing the sun and saying it must be that way because you don't understand how mirrors work.

Most people accept that Earth is round because science has shown conclusively that it is round. Yes, they are largely taught it as a child, but they are also taught other things like Santa and Jesus, but many discard them as childish nonsense.

When they see FEers, they don't see rational arguments and objection, they see dishonest lies with fake numbers, pure bullshit and inventing massive amounts of fantasy to explain quite simple things.

There isn't any evidence to prove Earth is flat. It lies purely in the myth/fantasy section and has no place in the fact section.

22691
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Hidden truth ! Light doesn't spread out in space !
« on: December 13, 2016, 12:47:15 AM »
I don't answer posts pissing race like that.

i.e. You know you are full of shit and have now ran away like a scared, pathetic child?

Either respond rationally or shut up with all your bullshit.

22692
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Hidden truth ! Light doesn't spread out in space !
« on: December 12, 2016, 10:32:34 PM »
I have some questions about this. Mostly, what qualifies as observation. Must it be observed by a sentient being? How about a fly on the wall? Or a mouse in the corner? If you set up a video camera to record it but no one personally observes it will the wavefront collapse?
You need to interact with the particle in some way to collapse the wave function.
Typically this will be a detector of some sort, not a sentient mind.

However, it can get even more complex in some interpretations.
Having a detector there will collapse the wave function so it behaves as a particle, but you still don't know which slit it went through, and it remains in a superposition of those 2 states.
It is only when you communicate with the experiment in some way that the wave-function collapses in its entirety and you know which slit it went through.

22693
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Better lie
« on: December 12, 2016, 10:26:25 PM »
I can address how your question is deceiving and improper as a closed-ended question after you learn to listen to answers once given to a question that was asked and how to properly address the answers to break it down.

Quote
No. I'm showing an inability to accept your bullshit.

Your inability to accept anything beyond your programmed mind has been evident for a while now. Unless it matches your expectation, you won't accept or even begin to try to understand any aspect of it and then your call it the very same thing you constantly spew in every post of yours. Closed indoctrinated Atheist mind.... I was spot on early on.

Until this changes, it's hopeless trying to explain 1+0=1 when you're bent on 0+0=1

No. The question is not deceiving, it is based upon the hypothetical argument which began with "everything has a cause".

I have read your answers, but again, every time you avoid answering the question directly.
You either need to modify the question or add some clarification.

I want you to answer the question as asked, using the same terminology as the hypothetical argument which was presented.

My mind is not programmed or indoctrinated or closed or any other crap like that.

The one displaying such behaviour would be you, who is unable to answer a simple question without manipulating it in some way to fit your closed, indoctrinated theistic mind.

Answer the question as asked, or admit you were wrong to declare the hypothetical atheist as stupid, and then we can move on.

22694
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Hidden truth ! Light doesn't spread out in space !
« on: December 12, 2016, 12:40:09 PM »
If rejecting something shows don't know it and proof of ignorance, you are rejecting God so you don'T know God so you are an ignorance. So you claim yourself an ignorance.
No. Rejecting something which is true which does actually exist.
Your imaginary evil tyrant hasn't been shown to exist, so no, you don't know if that is ignorance. Yes, there is a chance it is, but I highly doubt it.

I can reject that can do that before i see, accept and try that and see it is possible. This is scientific. So you are ignorance but i'm not.
No. You outright rejecting already established science and then spouting pure crap with no backing or evidence and then demanding proof of already proven science is not scientific in the slightest.

how can we decide which one of you true?
How about by seeing which one spouted a bunch of baseless claims as if as part of an argument and didn't back them up?
How about by actually researching the matter?

According to this ideas, i saw your examples but did not work on them. Because if you are an ignorance (in my opinion), your bullshit ideas may distort my righteous thought. And as you said that you are not a teacher. If you are, i don't need to learn anything have no evidences. You are just talking, they are doing something, they did something,... no evidence, no test, just you are talking bullshits. Who cares, i don't.
See, this "righteous thought" of yours is really just bigoted crap.
You are a bigot that will dismiss any ideas that don't align with your own thoughts because you don't want to risk being shown to be wrong.
Yes, reality will distort your "righteous" bullshit by showing it isn't true.

I didn't say I wasn't a teacher, I just said my job isn't to teach you when there is already so much info and evidence available. I even gave you an experiment to try if you really did care.

The simple fact is you are asserting crap which you haven't backed up. If you want anyone to believe this crap which goes against reality, you will need some serious evidence or rational arguments.

I'm not ignoring real proofs. But proof isin't some calculations. With some numbers you can prove everything what you want! Proof is theory and "EXPERIMENT" together. Show us experiment you are talking about. Don't tell me a fable, i'm not listening fables here oke? Show - us - a - real -  experiment. Don't recommend us, "show us the experiment".

No one here has suggested you just use calculations, instead several separate experiments have been suggested.
(I'm not providing any links to any result as you will just dismiss it, this is something you need to do yourself to accept).
I suggested you use solar cells, something which shows that light acts as a particle because if it was merely a wave it would simply transfer energy to the cell, if it was made of particles where each particle has a discrete quanta of energy, then you need a certain amount of energy to be able to excite the electron and kick it out of the cell to measure a voltage.
So that clearly shows light is a particle. To show it can pass through matter, put a piece of glass over the top. It still allows the light to pass through.

Someone else suggested the double slit experiment. This is an experiment which shows significant wave properties of light (or other particles if you have the tools).
It is also quite simple for you to do at home. You need a laser, and a thin piece of plastic or something else which is strong and opaque. First, shine the laser on a wall, what does it look like?
Now, make thin slit (very thin), and then shine the laser through that (with the slit as close as possible to the laser) onto the wall. Observe what that looks like. You should notice the light spreading out.
Now, make a second slit next to the first (again, very thin), and shine the laser through both onto the wall. Observe what that looks like.

Rather than acting like particles where they appear to hit the wall by passing through one of the slits, they produce a diffraction pattern just like a wave.

22695
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« on: December 12, 2016, 12:21:21 PM »
The same is true of your train example. If the train turned, the pendulum wouldn't turn (about its vertical axis) with it. Have a look at this:
i didn't change my mind i came back to my original idea, and proved it with logic. You're saying that a ball in the air is independent from the movements of the train? that would mean if i launch my sandwich up in a moving train it should hit me in the face?

i'm deseperately trying to explain something so basic that everything inside a moving train follows the movements of the wagon. that shouldn't be too hard to understand?

Jeff

No. You are confusing linear and rotational motion.

In order to have rotational motion, it must be connected to a centre of rotation.

Throwing a sandwich in the air doesn't have that (at least not any decent one), so it will just conserve linear motion.

If you were on a train, facing forwards, you threw your sandwich in the air, and then the train sped up, your sandwich can hit you in the face.
If you were on a train, facing sideways, you threw your sandwich in the air and then the train turned a sharp corner, your sandwich can hit you in the face.
Even if you were turning a corner at a constant rate, with you facing in, if you throw your sandwich in the air it can hit you in the face.

If you were in a shed, rotating, holding a ball to make it rotate, without gravity, and then let it go, it would fly and hit the side of the shed.
It would not keep following the shed.

There are 3 cases where things follow the movement of the container:
1 - They are physically attached such that there is a physical contact point between them which allows them to accelerate with the container. This is the case for people on trains. This has to be a fairly solid attachment. If you are just relying on your feet and there is a sudden movement, you can easily fall over (making a much larger and stronger contact).
2 - They are tiny little particles which basically fill the container (i.e. gas). This results in a pressure differential which serves to accelerate the particles and keep it moving with the container.
3 - They have massive air resistance and thus in a similar manner to 2, a pressure differential builds up which accelerates them.

Do you notice how a pendulum doesn't match any.

For the simple case of near the pole, the momentum from Earth rotating is piratically nothing.
Or alternatively, we can discuss its velocity. Assuming it can swing out 2m, then the velocity is given by omega r.
Omega is roughly 15 degrees an hour, or 7.3E-05 radians a second. Times that by our 2m radius and we have an astonishing velocity of: 0.00015 m/s.
This will be akin to the small errors from not releasing it perfectly, I highly doubt it is going to affect it.

I think at that point all that has to be said on the matter has been said. The proof has been brung, and the demonstration is finished.
And you are yet to refute it, even thought I explained it quite clearly.
I do notice that you do seem to like ignoring some posts that show the error in your ways.
Why is that?

If you can't understand that, then ask for a brain at Christmas because i think you just don't want to understand, or you are plain stupid.
So I know what to get you for Christmas...

22696
Flat Earth Debate / Man people don't get things.
« on: December 12, 2016, 12:14:48 PM »
if there was asteroids and micro planets, they would hit the ISS and the ISS would SHOW the hits. Instead the ISS is always pristine clean and new. that is highly suscpicious !
More than a dozen years in the emptiness of the universe, hit by thousands of asteroids, it would be far more damaged than what they show us.

Jeff

Perhaps in the FE model, but not in reality.
In reality, the ISS makes up a very small target in the large world of space.
Impacts would be expected to be quite rare.
This is even more pronounced as the ISS doesn't act as an unthinking rock orbiting Earth due to gravity. It is a manned craft capable of manoeuvring and thus can be manoeuvred to avoid impacts.

22697
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shap of the dome.
« on: December 12, 2016, 01:50:06 AM »
I assume their dome isn't necessarily a hemisphere.
Instead think of it like the top of a sphere, or like an inverted cup.

It still fails as it cannot accurately describe the location of distant stars, and that applies regardless of the size of the dome.

22698
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Hidden truth ! Light doesn't spread out in space !
« on: December 12, 2016, 01:47:06 AM »
You seem to be ignorant of how interactions and even matter works.

It doesn't work like solid balls hitting each other, at least not at the quantum level.
Instead it requires some kind of interaction between the particles or they keep of moving.

So particles can pass through "matter" without any problem.

This is the theoretical shit you say. I don't need to accept that. And don't accepting that don't let me an ignorant. I already reject most of the bunk that popular science suggests.

You must prove "particles can pass through space" before you say it. If you can't, you are a bigoted ignorant. If you force me accept your Unproven lies, you are a dictator man against freedom of speech.

You rejecting it means you don't know it which means you are ignorant.

As you are the one asserting that they can't the burden is on you to prove they can't.

I am neither bigoted nor ignorant, and it isn't my job to educate you and provide you with all the proof.

The best example I can easily think of was an experiment where they shot alpha particles at gold foil, the particles went through most of the time, but occasionally the bounced back at quite extreme angles.

Another simple one would be a solar cell covered with glass.

The light (particle) penetrates and goes through the glass before being absorbed by the solar cell. You can show that light is a particle by trying light of different wavelengths. They don't all work.

I'm not against freedom of speech, I'm against freedom of bullshit.

22699
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Hidden truth ! Light doesn't spread out in space !
« on: December 11, 2016, 11:40:27 PM »
You seem to be ignorant of how interactions and even matter works.

It doesn't work like solid balls hitting each other, at least not at the quantum level.
Instead it requires some kind of interaction between the particles or they keep of moving.

So particles can pass through "matter" without any problem.

22700
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Hidden truth ! Light doesn't spread out in space !
« on: December 11, 2016, 11:38:17 PM »
Well yes movement involves transferring energy from one place to another.
Who cares?

I wouldn't call light a material, and I would hesitate to call it matter.

Yes, some lab experiments have been able to significantly slow light down. That doesn't mean it is a material.

No. Transmission doesn't require a continuous structure.

22701
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Hidden truth ! Light doesn't spread out in space !
« on: December 11, 2016, 10:47:57 PM »
If you think of light as a wave, the question is more like why it wouldn't spread out.

If you think of light as particles, it does spread out to every directions.

So there is no space around earth. All objects, lights, gassesn and others stay in an environment has air. (Also water has)

Light is a particle with no rest mass. It acts as a wave, just like all particles do.
It does spread out, just like you would expect a wave to.

Space still has particles in it. No where is a perfect vacuum.

22702
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Better lie
« on: December 11, 2016, 10:44:20 PM »
No. I'm showing an inability to accept your bullshit.

You didn't answer the question asked, exactly as asked. You felt the need to change it.
As such, it is clearly not answering my question and thus the answer to my question is not staring you in the face.

My question:
So, is God part of everything?

The question you answered:
Is God part of everything that exists?

Yes

Notice how they aren't the same?
I could go with the one before:
1. Is God part of everything?
Answer: No

Clarification:
But they have different answers and you follow this one with a "clarification".

So can you answer honestly, without changing anything, without needing to manipulate or modify the question at all, either in the way you word the question before answering or in a clarification to the meaning of the question?

Is God part of everything?

Or shall I assume your answer to the question is yes?

You see, as the argument used "everything" without qualification, we need to agree on what "everything" means without any qualifiers.

22703
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Water as proof for a FE
« on: December 11, 2016, 01:51:00 PM »
Just to clarify on one point, there are several issues related to Earth, which are connected to some extent, which I think can be summed up as 2 overruling issues.

One is the shape, which has questions like is Earth flat or round.
The other is if and how it moves, which has questions like does Earth spin.

Showing Earth is round doesn't show that it spins.
Showing Earth doesn't spin doesn't show that it is flat.

As such, your argument about water not sticking to a spinning Earth has nothing to do with if Earth is flat or round.

The only time these issues really do get intrinsically linked is when you show Earth is spinning and show that the result of this spin makes no sense on a flat Earth, such as things not following a simple linear relationship between distance from centre (north pole) and effect of spin, and instead following one which indicates the surface of Earth is curved (e.g. cos), and things which show that the north and south hemisphere spin in opposite directions, like the Coriolis effect. They are things which indicate Earth spins and is round.

22704
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Water as proof for a FE
« on: December 11, 2016, 01:37:53 PM »
No. Weight has everything to do with gravity.
Weight is caused by mass.
No mass, no weight.

F[ucked ]t[hat ]f[or ]y[ou]
Stop bastardising my posts.
You aren't fixing anything, you are just changing my post to suit your own purposes.
Don't try "fixing" it. Explain what is wrong with or don't bother with it.
If you can't explain what is wrong, you have no place trying to fix it.

Weight is cased by gravity and mass.
No gravity, no weight. No mass, no weight.

It is not simply mass. If that was the case, things would have the same weight everywhere, but they don't.

You can try going down the path of we don't know what causes gravity, but saying it doesn't exist shows you don't give a damn about the truth.

No, it means we don't know that it really exists.
No. All it means is we don't know what causes it or fully understand it. It doesn't mean we don't know it exists.

I am a lying, dishonest piece of shit that is completely incapable of rationally and honestly responding to anything which goes against my views.

Ftfy.:D

And like wrote earlier, this does nothing to prove water sticking to a spinning sphere under the conditions of what you label gravity.
And it makes no attempt to, until we get an experiment set up like that.

All it is doing is to show your pathetic argument is pure bullshit.

You wouldn't expect water to stick to the a sphere that is right next to a much more massive sphere because of gravity. Gravity would pull the water and the small sphere to the massive sphere.

It is off topic so that is not ridiculing. Topic is water on a globe, as evidenced by OP.
No. It isn't off topic, as it is explaining something you either don't understand or don't want to admit the truth about.
You changed the topic to testing if objects can stick to something due to a force when there is a much larger force already there.

And no, that wasn't the ridiculing part.
The ridiculing part came before that, were people explained that in order to observe water falling to a sphere due to gravity, you would need to either have the sphere and water experiencing the same forces, i.e. be in a 0g environment.

We have that as Earth and water on Earth, but you wont accept that. Instead you wish to have us demonstrate it with a sphere suspended above Earth, while the water is free to fall to Earth, and that simply doesn't work as the sphere has an extra force on it (the force suspending it).

Rather than understand that or accept it, you ridicule it. Rather than accepting any of the explanations, you dismiss them as off topic.

Again, yes there is.
An honest representation accepts that in order to show a force doing something, you need to remove more significant contributors.
As such, you would not expect to be able to show water falling to a sphere due to gravity when there is a sphere much more massive right beside it.
As such, an honest representation would accept that you need to place the water and sphere in a "0g" environment to show it falling.

Again , no there is not. You admitted the experiment was useless for purposes described.
Your comment makes no sense.
No there is not what?

I admitted that surface tension doesn't show that water is held by gravity.
I admitted that what you want is extremely dishonest.

For you to claim "globe," does not equal "spinning sphere," plainly demonstrates what an utter liar you are.
No. Globe doesn't equal spinning sphere.
But that is beside the point.
The OP was entirely about water allegedly being flat and thus Earth couldn't be round (no mention of it spinning) because water would be flat.
The OP was refuting that pile of crap.
It had nothing to do with Earth spinning.

So no, it wasn't in the OP.

Yeah...you do...you are really demented. If you believe in a water sticking to a spinning globe, by default you believe in upside down water. You are now cemented as a disingenuous liar. I for one do not believe water can stick to the underside of anything due to any mystical force.
Not demented, just not accepting your crap.

Water sticking to a spinning globe is not upside down. This is because you are trying to appeal a Cartesian coordinate system to something which is more honestly and accurately described in polar co-ordinates. Any Cartesian coordinates you apply are inherently and entirely arbitrary, a compete opposite one is equally valid which would mean the top side and the underside would be in the same spot with 2 different coordinate systems.

This is also based upon the direction of gravity. In reality, gravity points to the centre of Earth, not some hypothetical, magical, -z direction.

No water is sticking at a negative r. That is because a negative r doesn't exist.
In all cases you have a surface at some r, and then water above it at a greater r. As such, the water is on top (yes there are some exceptions, due to air pressure, but that is another topic).

With this sphere there is no top and bottom. That requires the sphere to be placed in another coordinate system (such as a sphere sitting on Earth).

If you would like to disagree, tell me where the underside of Earth (the real, globe one, not your fake FE BS) is, and why. You can't, because it is described by polar coordinates, not Cartesian ones.

So no, I don't believe in upside down water, water isn't sticking to the underside of anything, and no mystical force is involved.

I quoted the original topic. I have stuck with the original topic. I have posted nothing but quotes of each and everyone of your RE-tard back pedaling  and contradictory BS here for everyone to see.
No. You have not stuck to the original topic. You have changed the topic to try and pedal FE bullshit. You are yet to demonstrate any RE back pedalling. You are yet to show any contradictory BS from the RE.

But there is plenty of bullshit from you.

22705
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Better lie
« on: December 11, 2016, 12:26:48 PM »
Then that's clearly your inability to ask a question.

If you want to ask "Is God part of everything that exists" then ask exactly that.

If you ask "Is God part of everything" and leave it at that then why would I answer something you're not even asking?

Your question:
Is God part of everything that exists?

Yes
No. It is your inability to honestly answer questions.
Most people already understand what everything means.
Everything created is a subset of everything, specifically the items in the set "everything" which are created.

Again, in the context of the argument, everything simply means everything (i.e. all that exists).

So how about you answer the question that I asked, exactly as I asked it rather than trying to manipulate it.

Is god part of everything? Yes or no, no dishonest bullshit.

22706
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Water as proof for a FE
« on: December 11, 2016, 12:23:53 PM »
Lookie here, the guy who says it cannot be replicated on the one hand, then on the other states a common water fountain suffices now wants to bury the topic in a massive pile of fluff.
He was saying you can't show it sticking due to gravity by having a model on Earth, however a particular type of water fountain shows that water can stick to a spinning ball due to things like surface tension and wetting.

What you term as gravity is non-existent. You can give the appearance of weightlessness, but weight has nothing to do with gravity.
No. Weight has everything to do with gravity.
Weight is caused by gravity and mass.
No gravity, no weight.

You can try going down the path of we don't know what causes gravity, but saying it doesn't exist shows you don't give a damn about the truth.

Don't know what the type of force is that causes things to not float away...could be some sort of electromagnetism or intermolecular interaction.
Nope.
Gravity (or whatever is holding us to Earth) is based upon mass. This is the only way to explain why 2 neutral objects of different masses but the same volume can fall at the same rate.

Electromagnetism is based upon charge. If that were causing it, one charge would be repelled while the other is attracted, and neutral objects would be weightless.
The vast majority of objects are neutral and as such would be weightless under this idea. The magnetism part would require movement of charge or magnetic field, but again suffers from the same issues.

For the most part, inter-molecular forces are also electromagnetism. They exist primarily as ion-ion (which is just electrostatics), ion-dipole, ion-induced dipole, dipole-dipole, dipole-induced dipole, and spontaneous dipole-induced dipole. Sure, it doesn't have the same issue as requiring a charge, but it makes the forces pretty much non-existent at decent ranges.

Regardless, cool argumentation on your part. Needing weightless environment to replicate water clinging to spinning sphere in a weighted (so-to-speak) environment.
Again, showing either your ignorance/misunderstanding or your dishonesty.

Needing an simulation environment (or lab) free from external influences of what you are trying to test.

In order to show water falling to the sphere due to gravity, you need to remove the influence of the gravity of Earth or it will fall to Earth instead.
So this is exactly what you would expect.

Of course you shorten it, because you cannot rationally respond to the point made.

Despite your protests, I did.
No. You ridiculed it and complained that explaining it was going off topic.
You are yet to rationally address it.

Nothing dishonest about my representation here, except to born liars and shills, to which subsets you clearly belong.
Again, yes there is.
An honest representation accepts that in order to show a force doing something, you need to remove more significant contributors.
As such, you would not expect to be able to show water falling to a sphere due to gravity when there is a sphere much more massive right beside it.
As such, an honest representation would accept that you need to place the water and sphere in a "0g" environment to show it falling.

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

I did not bring up the mystical spinning sphere. The OP did, you liar.
No. He didn't.
He refuted an argument made in favour of a flat Earth to show that it doesn't hold water.
He didn't make any mention of a spinning sphere.
He was purely addressing the claim that the surface of water should be flat.
You then brought up water sticking to a spinning ball.

In order for me to believe your flat Earth model, I demand you provide an experiment where the water sticks to a flat surface, regardless of the orientation of that surface, so including with that flat surface facing down.

If it only works in one way, that means there are either external influences, or there is something Earth is oriented with respect to.

You are joking right?

Upside down water...don't you already believe this without proof?
No. I'm not joking. If you demand such dishonest crap as proof that water can stick to a spinning sphere, I will make similar demands for the FE bullshit of water sticking to a plate.

I don't believe in upside down water.
I accept that gravity will attract the water to an object, and an approximately spherical object would thus be able to have water remain fairly level across its surface, based upon the plentiful proof we have.
On the other hand, for a flat Earth, this should produce a bulge of water in the middle, rather than a level surface.

Regardless, this is just to show the dishonesty of your demands.

Can you do it?
If not, why do you demand the same for RE?

Until you can have water stick to the bottom of a plate, on Earth, with nothing holding the water up except the plate (and no, you can't just be using the water's surface tension), then you have no right to demand the same for RE.

In short, you can just accept the fact you got pwned on this subject and don't go away mad...

It is so pretty to see the massive amounts of bullshit, off topic subjects being introduced into a thread when the RE-tards get owned on their arguments...
You are yet to own anyone. You are the one bringing in off topic BS.

The original topic was entirely about water allegedly being flat.
When you couldn't back that up (or refute the fact that water isn't flat), you bring in a different topic of Earth spinning and claiming water can't stick to that.

What you were dismissing as "off topic" and "bullshit" was simply people explaining why your demands or representations were wrong.

So far it has only been the FE-tards getting owned and bringing up off topic bullshit (or on topic bullshit).

They are yet to make a rational argument which they can honestly and rationally defend.

22707
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Aurora
« on: December 11, 2016, 12:00:57 PM »
sandokhan, do you have any actual evidence or rational arguments, or just paranoid, delusional ramblings?

22708
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Better lie
« on: December 11, 2016, 01:08:35 AM »
Here are the answers...

Please note, the text below is an answer. Since you've missed all the answers and keep ranting on about how I don't answer even though I've answered, I am emphasizing condeceningly on the answer I am about to give again.

So here's the answer to your questions:

1. Is God part of everything?
Answer: No

Clarification: Since your question is not a closed question, a yes or no is insufficient and should be clarified to ensure the follow up questions are relative to the answer and not relative to your interpretation of the answer.

"Everything" to a Theist is everything created. Hence, God as the creator cannot be part of everything (the created).

Question 2 can be attended to once this is clear

And once again, you avoid the question.

It was a closed question, only needing a yes or no answer.

This is made more obvious by your "clarification", where you specify "everything" to mean "everything created"

I did not ask if God was part of everything created, I merely asked if God was part of everything.

That would also make the premise a meaningless tautology saying every created thing has a cause, so then you need to show the universe is a created thing, making the argument pointless as it requires showing a god (or creator) exists before being able to show a god (or creator) exists.
As such, the only context this premise and thus this question makes sense in is if everything is meant as literally everything, i.e. all that exists, not just created things.

So I will ask again:
Is god part of everything (i.e. all that exists, not just the created, everything)?

22709
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Better lie
« on: December 11, 2016, 01:03:12 AM »
I get what you mean now, your post definitely helped me clarify that in my head. How would you go about finding a way to falsify this idea though?

With respect to particles decaying, we watch that happen a lot, with really clever machines like the LHC. Having never seen one decay and spawn a universe (they decay, as you are no doubt aware, into other things we can detect and measure), do you think that puts the odds of a universe existing at all very low, or do you think what we see as a flash-in-the-pan decay could actually be an eternity to a separate sentience in a separate universe?
Unfortunately, that is the problem with a few ideas in science which prevent them from actually being science. We have no way to falsify it, at least not yet.

I was going down the path of different perception of time, so that tiny almost instant the particle exists in could be perceived as eons for those inside.

Perhaps the biggest problem with this idea, which may simply be us not understanding space or the singularity properly is that there would appear to be a preferred direction, towards the centre of the particle, but in reality, we don't observe such a direction. One way around that is that we are expanding in higher dimensional space like the surface of an expanding ball.

Follow up, just because I know you already kind of answered that question and I don't mean to ask you mindless things that sound like a trap for a later post: do you think we are playing God with particle accelerators by potentially creating tiny universes we'll never know?

I think we're outside the realm of science now by a fair bit, but I hope you are OK with that. I'm OK with not knowing if there is a "god" that kicked off the universe, or that it "just happened" from natural causes of some sort, but it's fun to look into the possibilities and learn what others have considered possible. The virtual particle as a universe idea was totally new to me, and an intriguing concept.
No. In every account I have heard of of a god, this god was portrayed to be an extremely intelligent, sentient entity that knowingly and intentionally created a universe in a specific way.
If we are making it by accident, then that isn't playing god. That also corresponds with normal usage of playing god, where you are intentionally manipulating something or choosing to get a desired outcome, like hypothetical gene alterations to change a baby's hair colour.

If anything is playing god, it is all our simulation games like Sim City.

22710
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Better lie
« on: December 10, 2016, 05:44:11 PM »
typical behavior for virtual particles to spawn universes (what I mean is, one wouldn't likely argue that an entirely new universe tends to show up in between particle-antiparticle pairs when they pop into existence).
I was thinking more along the lines of the particle is the universe, where it has the space inside it expand from a point to a very large space that remains inside a small volume in our space, and with time being relative an entire universe of time could pass before annihilation.

How that singularity came to exist in what we now observe to be space is a neat fundamental question.
But what we observe to be space is inside the universe, which back then would have been inside the singularity.

Pages: 1 ... 755 756 [757] 758 759 ... 767