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 ... 756 757 [758] 759 760 ... 767
22711
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Better lie
« on: December 10, 2016, 03:09:45 PM »
Those virtual particles exist in space, though, to play Devil's Advocate. To imply the same (or similar) phenomenon is the cause for space to come into being takes a little bit of a leap of faith. There's no precedent, in other words, for those virtual particles existing outside space as we know it, nor is there any reason to think more universes have been created during the time between virtual particle formation and destruction. The universe is a unique animal, in that respect.

FWIW, I'm of the opinion that the universe probably has a natural cause, like every other phenomenon mankind spends enough time to understand.

But can we know for sure that the big bang was the formation of space, rather than just a point particle existing in space which decayed (and which had the space inside expand)?

The issue is that in order for space to be meaningful to an everyday person, you need at least 2 objects.
Ignoring the quantum issues, empty space would be akin to no space.
A particle in space with no spatial extent would be akin to just a particle with no space at all.

I'm of the opinion that there is likely something that exists without a cause, and I am fine with that, as anything else is merely pushing the problem back (although in the case of evidence for that something actually existing, it is fine to accept that it exits and is a cause), so either there is an infinite regress and we will never get to the end, or something simply exists without cause.

22712
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« on: December 10, 2016, 03:03:46 PM »
Let's suppose we have a penduluim inside a wagon.
When we rotate the wagon, or slide it, the result will be the same : all molecules inside will move with the wagon. As well as when you are inside a train, every movement of the train is translated to you, and to every molecule in the train. If not you would be throwed on the back wall when there is  a higher speed. Rotating the train is the same as putting the pendulum inside a building and the earth is rotating the building. So rotating the wagon creates a rotational force that affects everything inside the wagon. You need to understand that before we continue.
We do understand that. We also understand there isn't some magic force that causes everything to rotate.
If the train changes speed, you feel it. You do get thrown back onto a wall.
What stops that is what is connecting you to the train.
Typically that will be your feet or but and back.
This allows a significant transfer of force.
If something is in the air, it doesn't have that.
Instead it relies upon the air.
If the air was going to be strong enough to keep the pendulum rotating, then it wouldn't be able to oscillate.
It would just drop to vertical.

The air is not strong enough to keep the pendulum stationary, and instead allows it to swing back and forth. This means it isn't going to be able to impart enough energy/momentum to keep it moving with the container.

Also, it wouldn't be a rotational force, but I'll get to that later.

it is the same with gravity or not, that force is always present
As well as other forces, or instead you could generalise this "rotational force" to be one of air resistance.
This will be proportional to velocity and act in a direction opposite the velocity of the object (with this velocity being w.r.t the air).

We all know that gravity is what oscillates the pendulum : the ball is attracted to the ground and the momentum brings the ball on the other side, etc, until there is no momentum at all, and the penudulm then stands perfectly still and vertical.
And what stops it moving? The air resistance.
So do you notice how when the air has transferred enough momentum/energy to keep it stationary, it is stationary?

At each time t, there are two forces : gravity (g->) and the rotational force (r->), and they both affect the pendulum
the resulting force r-> + g-> is no equal to g->. Even when it's not "gravity-less", the ball is affected by the rotation as we saw earlier.
And this force r-> is tiny.
Like I said, it should be ar-> (air resistance).

The rotational force affects the extremity of the pendulum (the ball) much more when the ball is at its change of direction : during that time, the ball is almost gravity-less, so we are in the previous phase where we can account that there is no gravity for some time, and that the gravitational force don't counter the rotational force. So at this moment the rotational force is the only force that exist. Because the pendulum is slower at these extremities, forces applied at that moment have greater effect than at the vertical for instance.
No. The forces have the same effect regardless of where they are applied. The exception would be forces due to things like air resistance which are dependent on speed. In that case as the pendulum is the slowest here, the force will be least here.
The force from air resistance is greatest when the string is vertical and the pendulum is moving the fastest. This force acts to slow the pendulum down. If it doesn't do it here, what makes you think it is going to keep it rotating with Earth when it is so much smaller at the extremities.

And again, this isn't a rotational force. It is a linear force. Lets ignore the air resistance component due to its swinging for now (even though that alone shows that this force isn't going to significantly effect it)
So, at the pole, it is at the peak of its swing, and it is forced to the right in your diagram.
It was being pushed to the right from when it moved from vertical to this side. It keeps getting pushed right until it goes back to vertical. The force is also proportional to how far away it is from the centre of rotation.
Now the air is moving the opposite direction, and it is forced left.
This acts to counter the force which was forcing it right.

This means the force on one side counters the force on the other.

This means in total, there is no force trying to make it rotate.

so the conclusion is : there is no way the pendulum would make a 360° rotation on the north pole, it would be way WAY less than that due to the always forgotten rotational force.
Nope. The conclusion is there is no "rotational force".
You just have the force of the air resistance, which is negligible, or else the pendulum would just sit vertically not swinging. This means that if it was going to cause a rotation of the pendulum, it would be insignificant and thus you would likely observe the 360 degree rotation.
But more importantly, it isn't a rotational force. It is a linear force where the 2 sides cancel each other out.

Also, if you wish to assert it would be WAY less, then do the math and show just how much less, because right now, you are like those that say we couldn't be spinning because we would fly off, ignoring that the force of gravity is roughly 300 times stronger, meaning we would still fall to Earth, or for a less "controversial" idea, you couldn't possibly put your foot on the accelerator to speed up a car because you would travel way too fast instantly due to that acceleration which would kill you.

So to conclude, you would expect it to make an apparent 360 degree rotation, as there is no rotational force, and even if there was, it would be insignificant.

22713
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE VS GE moon landing
« on: December 10, 2016, 02:44:11 PM »
Tell me one instance where doing the real thing is easier than just lying and saying you did.
How about you address the actual issue rather than a pathetic strawman?
It isn't lying and saying they did.
It would be be pretending to go with "live" broadcasts.
Even pretending in movies can be more challenging than doing it for real, at least before the advent of modern CGI.

So, one simple instance, stabbing something with a sword such that it goes completely through them and out the other side.
In reality, it is quite simple, you stab them. Sure, it means they likely die, but that doesn't mean it isn't easier. To fake it, you need a sword which disappears upon stabbing, without any noticeable telescoping (remember, this is all before CGI), and something on the back to match that, again with no noticeable telescoping, and so on.

In the case of the moon landing, they wouldn't have been able to do it in real time and have it appear as slow motion.
The best they could do to fake it would be record them jumping and running and then slow it down.
But they didn't have the film required to do that all in one go. They would have needed several rolls of film and need to seamlessly change them, something which is virtually impossible.


You cant, and I will NOT accept any other answer, for I already know you are a dummy, and to argue with a dummy would make me more like you.
No. You wont accept any other answer because you don't give a shit about reality. You just care about stroking your own ego and living in your delusional fantasy land.

Did you know the entire muslim religion preaches a flat earth... Not so few, eh?
Did you know that all Abrahamic faiths do? It is one thing which makes it a laughing stock to rational people.
But that doesn't stop the dishonest "believers" from lying and pretending their holy bullshit is compatible with reality (i.e. a round Earth).

How about instead of complaining about other people trolling you stop your childish crap and start taking things seriously?
Rationally defend your claims, including against the refutations by others.
Rejecting any answer you don't like isn't taking things seriously.


22714
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE VS GE moon landing
« on: December 10, 2016, 02:34:47 PM »
Just the amount of power needed to film and send the film live  from 384,400 km away is preposterous. They would need have needed tons of batteries (at that time, sending video wirelessly would've been scifi anyway), i mean *everything* is wrong wrong wrong
How about instead of a baseless claim, you explain how you arrived at this conclusion?

And no. At that time, people were using TVs, which is sending video wirelessly, so it was well within the realm of science-reality, not science fiction.

How about you try and explain how they managed to "pretend" there was low gravity?

did you watched Operation Lune? yes that's exactly what i thought : this is just a big joke, and i've laughed during the whole movie, right ?
No, and I have no intention of watching such a pile of crap.

the funniest is that you can see the astronauts footprints from 25 Km high (82k feet)!

way to go NASA! this is proof right there (what? it was too high to see footprints? do you imply NASA lied? come one it was on TV ! you realize? TV = PROOF that's not that hard)
 :P
Jeff
No. That doesn't indicate individual bootprints, just the track from them walking/jumping around.
But again, have you actually done the math to determine if it would be possible? Or do you just see it as something which is ridiculous and dismiss it?

If the US faked it, Russia would have as well. Hence the "space race". Do you really think the US would've called Russia out on it, if they had faked it themselves? No way.

then why didn't they go for real? maybe for the same reasons duh
Nope. If it was all faked, what was stopping the Russians faking it? Nothing.
If it was done for real, then there were serious technical limitations that the US managed to overcome which the Russians hadn't yet.

22715
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ISS (real) and Gravity (fake)
« on: December 10, 2016, 02:26:14 PM »
That is the same kind of logic as expecting to be walking down a slope endlessly when walking over a globe, only to eventually fall off it.

Wtf are you talking about? That sentence doesn't even make sense. What if you turn around? Are you going uphill then? No, Earth is flat, there is no "global sloping" except the mountains and valleys created by God.

You are right.
That sentence doesn't make sense. Turning around completely disproves it.
Yet FErs continually spout the same bullshit again and again, with things like claiming the delta of the Nile river is uphill from the start of the Nile.

This is because going downhill is going to a lower gravitational potential, and thus if you follow the curve of the real Earth (globe) you aren't going down hill.

I wont bother with your childish delusions.

22716
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ISS (real) and Gravity (fake)
« on: December 10, 2016, 02:18:02 PM »
If the earth was a ball & flying level, the ISS pilot would have to nose down 16.6 km (54 780 feet) per minute!
Why?
You seem to be thinking the ISS pilot is in a plane that is flying at high speed.
They aren't. They are in an orbiting space craft which is falling as it flies sideways due to its inertia, with it falling to match the curvature of Earth.
If Earth was flat, then it would have crashed back into Earth long ago (and have no reason to follow a curved path).

There is also a much better way of expressing how they would need to "nose down", especially as you can't do simple things like divide it by 60 to get per second, and I assume your calculation for it was actually wrong.
Lets see, ISS speed is 7.67 km/s or 460.2 km/min. Thus in 1 minute they would travel 460.2 km, with Earth, having a radius of 6377.83 km, that is a curvature of 16.58 or 16.6 km.
Yep, pure bullshit.
Firstly, they aren't on the surface of Earth, so you can't use your calculations for them there.
You need to change the radius to match their orbit. That is an extra 400 km, which lowers it to 15.6 km of curvature in that minute.
But they don't need to "nose down" all that in a minute. After they "nose down" a bit, they follow the surface of Earth, and thus a new calculation is needed.

This also has the issue of no wings providing lift, so they are falling continually.

Instead, a much better way to consider it is the acceleration required.

Rather than using an ellipse, lets pretend it is a circle. They are undergoing uniform circular motion with a radius of roughly 6778. km, with a period of 92.65 minutes.
Working:
For UCM, acceleration is omega^2*r. Omega is 2*Pi/period.
Therefore, a=(2*Pi/T)^2*r
=8.659 m/s/s
Now acceleration due to gravity.
This can be expressed as a=g1*r1^2/r^2
where g1 is the acceleration at radius 1, and r is the radius we are interested in.
This is because F=GMm/r^2, thus a=GM/r^2.
Thus g1=GM/r1^2
Thus GM=g1*r1^2
Thus a=g1*r1^2/r2^2.
Now, using the obvious choice, g1 is 9.8 m/s^2, r1 is the radius of Earth, and r is their orbit.
This gives a=8.677 m/s^2

This means they need to be accelerating downwards at a rate of 8.658787079 m/s^2.
Just using rough numbers, with get the acceleration due to gravity as 8.677 m/s^2.
But really, I only used 2 sig figs, so I should only really say it is 8.7 m/s^2.
So that matches.
As such, the "pilots" don't need to do anything. They just keep on "falling".

Now, reconsider this :
Why? To explain to you again why they are pure bullshit?

Like I said, their path you have drawn on a flat Earth don't match reality or even the other path you have drawn.
If you want to object to the path looking weird on Earth (the real globe Earth), then you need it shown on a globe, not a projection of that globe.


Johannesburg - Rio :

No. The direct flight.
But then again, there likely isn't enough people wanting it for it to exist.
Also, you seem to have just drawn in one path, what about the others?
Specifically, the one with the stop over in Dubai?
How come these flight paths go very close to or even over Africa, but in your FE BS, they don't match at all?

So no, it doesn't help by switching to a FE map.
The simple reality is they are 2 separate flights and they allow people to book it as 1.

Sydney - Santiago :

Again, what about the direct one? You know, the one which goes south of New Zealand? This one?
http://www.travelmath.com/flying-time/from/Sydney,+Australia/to/Santiago,+Chile

What you are showing are multiple flights which you group together as one.

And again, they don't match.

Why don't you try getting real flight paths and drawing them on a flat Earth model to match the real flight path?
Bali - LA :

Your routes are completely different.
If you are talking about the emergency landing which did occur, that was on a Taiwan to LA flight, not a Bali to LA flight. And guess what the shortest distance is on a globe (aka real) Earth for that flight? One which takes it close to Alaska (actually over parts of it).

So no problem there.

Why would they fly far to the north over the western edge of Hudson bay
Did they actually fly over that, or did that just appear out the window?
Was it actually Hudson bay, or did he just think it was?

To be honest, the straight line (on a globe) between Chicago and Seoul doesn't even go over the north edge of Alaska but cuts Alaska in two equal halves!
No. That isn't being honest. That is spouting pure BS.
Look at your line. Does it cut Alaska in half? No. It goes right on the north edge.
Do you notice how your route barely even touches Alaska (if at all), nor does it go over Hudson Bay?

So once again, there is nothing to explain away.

Your image with the tape measure doesn't show a great circle path.


Now that you have mentioned aircraft trimming (for level flight) i have to quote this awesome and TRUE explanation for how it REALLY works :
And then proceed to spout pure bullshit showing complete ignorance of how it works?
I have already dealt with this bullshit before, and like a typical child you just ignore it because you don't want to admit you are wrong.

This way, the aircraft hold's it's altitude without descending or ascending. This relieves the pilot, as well, of back or forward yoke pressure. Once the aircraft is trimmed, it's trimmed and will hold it's altitude, Mean Sea Level (MSL) all day long (Weather permitting).
Notice what it says? It holds its altitude. This means it would follow the curvature of Earth. This means they wouldn't be losing altitude nor would it show up on any system.

If there was a curvature to the earth, the amount of altitude loss would not only be visually noted on the altimeter but your body would feel pressure of constant G force as you would have to push the nose of the craft down to hold your altitude along the curvature of the earth. If this was a automatic system, passengers in jet's would have a noticeable G effect happening to their bodies because of the speed of the aircraft having to constantly descend to maintain constant altitude. (G-force)
Pure bullshit.
If it was following the curvature of Earth, and maintaining altitude there would be no altitude loss on the altimeter or anywhere else.
Yes, your body would feel G-forces, but nothing noticeable.
They are well below orbital velocity and thus no serious g-forces would be experienced.

Even IF an aircraft's gyro did automatically compensate for the curvature of the earth (Which it doesn't), you would be constantly fighting to properly trim the airplane as the craft would be constantly trying to adjust it's altitude to deal with the curvature of the earth itself; Assuming you are manually flying the aircraft.
Understand??[/i]
No. That is because it makes no sense.
The craft would be keeping its altitude constant following the curvature of Earth, so you wouldn't need to fight it to follow the curvature of Earth.

How about you understand what maintaining altitude means before spouting such crap?

@frenat You are either plain stupid or a blatant liar!

And of course.
Rather than deal with refutations of your points, you just insult people.

Also, how about we get back to the original topic of ISS vs Gravity?

22717
Santa or Satan ? ^^.)

if you doubt even official releases then that proves a lot about your methods to find the "truth" :D

Both, because it is quite childish to believe in either, especially if you think an all powerful god is the good one.

What makes you say space.com is an official release?
It is a comment by a popular science writer. These people often get the details wrong.

All I am suggesting is that that is a way they could have done it.
I see no problem with it being done live and you are yet to demonstrate any problem with it.

22718
So if there's no delay or so little that it's not noticeable, then why do the bozo's who are supposedly on it act like they're on the supposed moon with a delay?

You see apparent LIVE feeds from people. You people keep telling us about the LIVE feeds and yet there's always a few seconds delay most of the time.
Odd times they do mess up but we won't go into that, except to get back to superstar singer and expert guitar playing commander astronaut extraordinaire, Chris Hadfied singing about the fictional space station with another singer on Earth with a crew of unsuspecting singers believing they are singing in unison with the floating musical genius.

Wakey wakey time.

There is no noticeable delay required for him being on the ISS.
If he was on the moon, then that has a required round trip delay of 2.5 seconds.

The delay typically seen is merely the result of the crap they use for interviews. You can have live transmissions (even to the ISS) without those delays.

He is singing about a real space station.

22719
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Better lie
« on: December 10, 2016, 12:57:20 PM »
Fair enough, I don't like the religious implications "theist" has, believing that everything just coming from nothing, violating everything we know about thermodynamics makes less sense than there being energy before our universe was created which led to the creation of our universe, isn't completely theistic in my opinion.

It is definitely not atheistic that is why I said as much.

I disagree, with the exception of using "creation".
There is nothing theistic about believing in matter or energy existing in some form before the formation of what we think of as the universe.
It only becomes theistic when you start implying it is sentient (i.e. is a god).

Personally, I accept that ultimately, there is no reason for this existence. It is either based upon an infinite series of past causes, or something simply exists without cause.

And my understanding of the big bang isn't formation from nothing, it is the decay of a singularity. I have no idea how that singularity came to be.


Also, as you brought up quantum mechanics, do you know about virtual particles?
That is quite literally formation from nothing. And putting things in space (especially close together) suppresses their formation.

It is hypothetically possible that the singularity from which the universe came was a virtual particle that then decayed. It could have been in this space, or in some higher space, and with that it is hypothetically possible that it will annihilate at any time.

The other fun fact is that if our measurements/calculations are correct, and the universe is flat so the very distant galaxies aren't just closer ones which appear further away from seeing the universe twice (or thrice) the universe is a black hole.

22720
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Water as proof for a FE
« on: December 09, 2016, 10:33:39 PM »
That means that relative to an observer on the earth, the heavier object would hit the ground first, though still by a negligible amount.

This depends on how they are dropped.
If you drop both of them together, at the same time, then Earth is accelerating towards them at the same rate.

If you drop one, measure it, and then drop the other, then Earth accelerates differently for them meaning Earth meats the heavier one slightly earlier.

22721
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Better lie
« on: December 09, 2016, 10:31:38 PM »
If all of that is too long and you just want to focus on one thing at a time, that is fine by me.

Lets start with the first key question regarding that argument:
Is god part of everything (i.e. the set which contains all that exists, or if you like all that is possible to exist)?

I wouldn't exactly call myself a theist, but I am definitely not an atheist.

I'll play if that's ok.

Yes, god is part of everything, the infinite, all that ever has or ever will exist, everything we experience has an innate connection to the divine essense.

This is specifically aimed at observer, no one else.
Unless you want to look back at the comments that started all it (which is quoted in my post just before the one you posted).

Also, atheist/theist is a dichotomy (at least for people).
You either believe in a god or you don't. If you do you are a theist (even if you are a deist or the like), if you don't you are an atheist.
The only potential complications are things like pantheism where you declare the universe God.

22722
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Better lie
« on: December 09, 2016, 07:05:04 PM »
If all of that is too long and you just want to focus on one thing at a time, that is fine by me.

Lets start with the first key question regarding that argument:
Is god part of everything (i.e. the set which contains all that exists, or if you like all that is possible to exist)?

22723
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Water as proof for a FE
« on: December 09, 2016, 06:59:51 PM »
seriously? you're just gonna argue with him about gravity? you realize how this looks to them right? to them if we don't all agree on every aspect of reality then there is uncertainty so we must be wrong. objects with more mass do accelerate towards each other faster, otherwise acceleration due to gravity on the moon would be the same as that of earth. and the force of gravity of you're couch would be the same as that of earth. bigger objects pull harder and faster, that's why you can jump farther on the moon. he's right, technically on paper objects with more mass all faster but the effects is beyond negligible.

you don't need to argue such advanced topics, i guarantee that no FE model will stand up to the most basic of critiques, you don't need to get into the swamps of advanced scientific theory with people who's entire world view is pre victorian.
I don't care about how it looks. I care about correcting errors.
A big problem with this world is that so many people have been taught things which are wrong and thus find problems with it and think the model of reality is wrong and thus turn to this crap.

Yes, if you have 2 sets of objects, one set containing 2 very massive objects, the other set contain 2 much less massive objects, the set containing the 2 very massive objects accelerate faster.
But that isn't what we are talking about here.

We are talking about dropping 2 objects together and watching them fall to Earth.

22724
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Better lie
« on: December 09, 2016, 06:55:10 PM »
You find it futile because I am not accepting your bullshit.
Nope. I'm not asking for nor expecting you to accept it. That would make you a theist God forbid.
No. You are expecting me to just take your belief as a fact without any rational backing for it, and use that fact as a part of a rational argument.
The belief in question here would be that everything except your god needs a cause, but your god doesn't, requiring your god to exist.
Yes, it would make me a theist.

If you aren't expecting me to accept it, why do you keep repeating the same bullshit and acting like I'm a moron while doing so.

I'm expecting a simple "okay" when your questions are answered as well as corrected. But if you personally judge it to be dishonest then who am I to judge your judgement?
I will give you an "okay" when you actually answer my questions. You are yet to do that directly. Instead you just keep on avoiding them. I asked very simple questions and you refused to answer them.
You are yet to correct me.
Instead you repeatedly lie about me, acting like I'm a moron and incapable of understanding a very simple concept, which I clearly indicated I do understand.

However, you repeatedly assert pure bullshit about me, continually claiming I am ignorant or the like just because I'm not agreeing with you, even though I made it clear I understand that.
I'm not claiming you're ignorant. I referred to some actions and behaviours as being that of ignorance. Saying, "You are ignorant" is calling you ignorant - If you said to me that what I'm saying is stupidity then it doesn't mean you're calling me stupid.
You are saying I don't understand, and thus don't know. That is what ignorant means. So yes, you are claiming I am ignorant.
As it is quite a simple idea to grasp, which I was capable of grasping as a child, you are calling me stupid by repeatedly asserting I don't understand it.

Now, would you like to try and be honest and answer the questions I asked, or admit the theist in the hypothetical argument was wrong, not the atheist?
You're like a guard at the illegal Guantanamo Bay who tortures innocent people until they confess to what they want to hear. "Now will you be honest, now will you be honest" until you hear what you want to hear and if you don't then automatically in your atheist programmed mind it's dishonest. Like I said... futile. Feel free to re-read my answers and see if you're capable of taking out time to actually understand the answers that were given.
No. I am nothing like that. Instead I am a rational person that wont get distracted by bullshit.
Again, it has nothing to do with me not liking your answer. It has everything to do with you not answering the question.
I understand the answers given, and I understand you repeatedly avoided the questions rather than actually answering them.
How about you try and address them directly?

Instead, in your theist, brainwashed mind, because I don't just accept your bullshit and continue to ask the questions, you act like I'm a moron that just isn't understanding.

If you want to resume openly without your currently obvious closed judgemental mind then feel free. This can be in the form rewinding to the beginning and asking the root question that threw you off in the first place or by understanding anything I've said and to ask for clarification instead of the childish "Now be honest" "You're dishonest" judgement judgement condemnation damned to abyss
You are the closed minded bigot here, not me.
You are so closed minded you can't even answer simple questions.
You are so closed minded and bigoted against those who don't believe, rather than objecting to the hypothetical theist's position (which you seem to disagree with, but are yet to honestly and openly admit), you attack the atheist that is merely asking a rational question based upon the theist's claim, suggesting it would be a stupid thing to ask.
You are so closed minded and bigoted that when people don't accept your deflections and claims you act like they are idiots and ignorant and try to get them to understand, even if they already understand quite well.
You are so closed minded that you refuse to accept the possibility that you might be wrong and that God might have a cause or creator, or that the universe might exist without cause, even rejecting pretty much the same same argument you made for a god not needing a cause when it was made for the universe, acting like anyone who suggests it is ignorant and just doesn't realise that it is possible for the universe to have a cause.

How about you stop with your judgements, repeatedly declaring that I don't understand?

Why don't you accept that I do understand and actually answer the questions?

So if you want to start again, that's fine. Just get off your high horse, stop acting like I'm a moron and actually answer my questions.

Here it is from the start (and don't worry, I will start again, not copying the same post as I made before).

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
Why would it require someone dumb to say the above (in the atheist position)?
It is merely asking a rational question based upon the argument presented by the theist.
It is asked to show that a god doesn't solve anything, it merely pushes the problem back and thus this is not a rational argument for the existence of God (or even a god in general).

Is God part of everything? If it isn't, it doesn't exist.
Otherwise, does God need a cause? According to the first line of the argument, everything does need a cause, which would include any god that exists. This would mean that God does need a cause and thus makes it a perfectly rational question to ask.
If God doesn't need a cause, then that means that the first premise for the theist is wrong, and not everything needs a cause.

So, is God part of everything?
Does everything (including God) need a cause?

Quote
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.
So you pretty much state the theist's position? That God is uncaused and thus doesn't require a cause.
This means the argument keeps on going.
If God doesn't need a cause, why assert the universe does?
Why not let the universe be uncaused?

22725
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE VS GE moon landing
« on: December 09, 2016, 02:10:08 PM »
Why NASA can't/wont organize at least "one another" (after 50 years) flight to the moon? - The answer (even some astronots claim such idiotic claims) is :
Why should they?
What's the point?
Why not focus their attention on Mars?

Why ANTARCTICA TREATY is so restrictive? - The answer is :
No. The answer is it isn't.

The antarctic treaty prohibits military activity on Antarctica, everything else is fine.
You are free to go exploring there if you want.

Why there are no flying routes above Antarctica between Australia and South America?
Because that isn't the shortest route, and it has increased danger due to the cold.
It is safer to remain over the water (where they could be rescued by boat), relatively quickly if something were to go wrong, rather than go over Antarctica and need to be rescued by plane or land crews.

I am yet to hear a single person honestly using aliens as an excuse.

22726
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE VS GE moon landing
« on: December 09, 2016, 02:04:07 PM »
Probably you are trying to change their mind but, hey be honest, how many flathers did you changed (really). I say nobody. Because it is a reality.
No.
We know we can't change your mind.
You are far too far gone to give a shit about reality.
We are here to counter the bullshit you pedal to prevent other people that are not yet so heavily brainwashed and committed into your bullshit from beleiving your bullshit and instead accepting reality.

All it takes for bullshit (like FE) to triumph is for sane, rational people to say nothing.

22727
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Water as proof for a FE
« on: December 09, 2016, 02:01:43 PM »
Some people may be ignorant, and find the fact that you said the emboldened section, which sounds contradictory. To clarify, they don't technically fall at the same rate, the heavier object falls a very small bit quicker, but it is such a small number that it is immeasurable. Considering the masses are so tiny relative to the planet and the gravitational constant G, it makes for an unnoticeably tiny difference.

The difference is caused by air pressure, as if you drop them together Earth moves towards both at the same rate (and the movement of Earth would be the acceleration of Earth, not the acceleration of these objects)

Gravitational force is proportional to mass. Acceleration is proportional to force and inversely proportional to mass.
This means for objects falling on Earth, the acceleration is proportional to mass times the inverse of mass, so 1. So the acceleration (or the rate of falling) is not proportional to mass in any way.

22728
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ISS (real) and Gravity (fake)
« on: December 09, 2016, 01:50:38 PM »
What is off about the flight path from Cuba to Moscow, JackBlack? You say it doesn't match and it gets some things wrong, but I do not see that at all. Is this visual proof that you are lying?
The picture is blurry which makes it hard to see, but if you look closely, it doesn't match.
It can also be quite easy to miss differences (or quite hard to spot them), even when the 2 picutres are basically identical and it requires no mental manipulation of the images to see if they match.

You not noticing those differences doesn't mean I am lying. It simply means you are not looking well enough.

One spot is near Greenland.
Look in the top image.
The flight path goes off Greenland shortly before that last "bump".
Now look at the "flat earth", it comes off well after that bump.

Another massive difference which is much easier to see once you have noticed it (and I missed it at first and only saw it now), is around Norway-Sweden-Finland-Russia.
The flight path starts going over Norway in the wrong spot, but then the most obvious part is the crossing between Sweden and Finland.
In the actual route, it goes over the Baltic Sea. In the FE model, it instead crosses directly over land.
The same issue is repeated from Finland to Russia.
In the real map it again crosses the Baltic sea.
In the FE model, I am not sure if it goes directly over land, or instead crosses the White Sea.

There are also issues with its path over the US and Canada, but I wont go into them.

So no, it doesn't match.

Care to apologise for accusing me of lying?

22729
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Water as proof for a FE
« on: December 09, 2016, 01:35:27 PM »
What kind of response is this? Why is this idiocracy tolerated? Happy faces and a low content misspelled insult. Wtf. Ban this dummy already. As to you triangles, read the thread about density and air pressure. It explained a lot and made me realize that gravity is absolute b.s. Gravity never made sense to me growing up anyway. I remember asking my teacher why the moon never crashes into earth if gravity pulls on everything, the answer always differed. Almost as if it was a force that was mis understood and merely speculative. Which is exactly what the theory of gravity is.
So far all I have seen from you is attacking people (not even the content of their post, just the people themselves).
For the record, the ones most often spouting infantile crap are the flat Earthers. The ones that continually refuse to engage in rational debate and instead just spout bullshit or ignore people.

How about instead of spouting such crap you try and refute what these people say?
If you think there is a problem, rather than calling it idocracy, you point out what is wrong with it?

And really? You fell for that pressure BS?

Perhaps you can explain why pressure, a hydro-static, isotropic force (i.e. it presses the same in all directions) causes an object to move?
Why does pressure cause things to fall down, rather than up or left or right?

For example (ignoring wind), a simple 1 m cube (oriented such that its faces are perpendicular to the x,y and z axes), in mid air, has the following forcing acting on it:
For the [1,0,0] face (the one perpendicular to the x axis in the positive x direction), it experiences a force of 100 kN in the -x direction, or [-100kN,0,0].
For the [-1,0,0] face (technically it should be 1 bar, i.e. a one with a horizontal line above it), experiences a force of [100kN,0,0].
For the [0,1,0] face, it experiences a force of [0,-100kN,0]
For the [0,-1,0] face, it experiences a force of [0,100kN,0]
For the [0,0,1] face, it experiences a force of [0,0,-100kN]
For the [0,0,-1] face, it experiences a force of [0,0,100kN]

So the total force is [-100kN,0,0]+[100kN,0,0]+[0,-100kN,0]+[0,100kN,0]+[0,0,-100kN]+[0,0,100kN]=[0,0,0].

As such, the total force on the object from atmospheric pressure is 0.
So no, pressure can't explain anything.
It can't even explain why things begin to move.

Technically that sum is just an approximation.
In reality, the pressure drops as you gain altitude. As such, the object would experience a tiny net force pushing it up.
So the force from pressure is in the wrong direction. But that pressure differential requires gravity (or some other force like gravity) to explain it.

You then get other massive issues.
Pressure is force per unit area, not force per unit mass.
What this means is that if pressure somehow did accelerate objects downwards (which makes no sense at all), it should accelerate low density objects, like paper or a feather, much faster than more dense objects, like metals.
But that isn't what is observed. In a vacuum (to remove wind resistance) they fall at the same rate.
In an atmosphere, the air serves to slow down the very low density objects.
For 2 similar objects, like a hollow iron ball and a hollow aluminium ball of the same size (which for simplicity of the example, can be assumed to have a vacuum inside or the cavity made just perfect), so the iron ball weighs three times as much but has the same size and shape as the aluminium ball, should result in the aluminium ball accelerating three times as fast as the steel one, but instead, you get them accelerating at the same rate.

This is because gravity (or whatever force it truly is) is proportional to mass, not area.

So that is another reason why air pressure simply doesn't work to explain why things fall.

Another nail in the coffin is a vacuum, where objects still fall.
If it was going to be based upon pressure, then the higher the pressure the faster things should fall, but in a vacuum, things fall at either pretty much the same rate or faster because they no longer get the air resistance.

So no, pressure doesn't work AT ALL.

Also, I would prefer it if you went to that thread and defended it there rather than here (and feel free to provide a link to it here).

As for the rest of your comment, your teacher misunderstanding it doesn't mean gravity is wrong.

The moon doesn't crash into Earth because of its own inertia.

If you spin a ball on a string, at least at high enough speed, that doesn't crash into you, even though there is a lot of force on the string pulling the object directly towards you.

For a simplistic view, it fell towards you, but at the same time, it moved along sideways. If you combine these 2 movements, it is still the same distance away (simplifying a bit, technically its orbit is an ellipse). It has also altered course due to the acceleration.
Now you can do the same thing, and the same thing happens.
That is why it doesn't crash into us.

22730
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Water as proof for a FE
« on: December 09, 2016, 01:20:00 PM »
Shortened to this: "He said he need 0g to perform the experiment."

Answer: No shit Sherlock...
Of course you shorten it, because you cannot rationally respond to the point made.

No. Yes, changing the subject.

Ftfy
No. You didn't. You blatantly lied about it. That isn't fixing.
It isn't changing the subject. It is providing you with another way of thinking about the issue to show the errors in your understanding or the dishonesty in your presentation.

He didn't because he cannot and I am here to add more shitposting in an effort to bury the original foolishness.

Ftfy
Again, pure bullshit.
He addressed your post using a different model to help you understand that you were spouting pure bullshit.

I realize the OP topic is about water sticking to a spinning sphere and I realize that truly is the original claim, but hey, what do you expect me to do...admit it?

Ftfy
No. You just present it like that.
The OP was addressing an argument made in favour of a flat Earth.
Specifically:
Quote
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.
That was the original claim.
Then you brought up water allegedly not being able to stick to a spinning sphere.

Perhaps you should think it through rationally?
He needs an environment in which the 2 objects are falling together with no external influences such that if it was in a container it would float rather than fall to the floor or need to be supported. That kind of environment (or feeling) is referred to as 0g. He doesn't need to remove gravity.

I have. You have not.
So you have thought it through and are knowingly spouting pure bullshit? You are knowingly lying to us?

If you have thought it through rationally, you would know exactly what he meant and how his example regarding magnetism isn't changing the topic at all, but trying to help clarify something.

I have thought it through, which is why I can tell what you are saying is pure BS.

OP claims water can stick to a spinning sphere because of gravity, but then states he needs water and spinning sphere in a 0 g environment to replicate.
Yes. In order to honestly replicated the effect of gravity and demonstrate it shows the water to the sphere, he needs an environment free from outside, gravitational influences, where the entire system is in free fall, aka 0g.

Just like to show a fridge magnet can hold up a paper-clip or a staple, you would need to keep it away from a powerful electromagnet.
If you put a paperclip on a fridge magnet, free from external influences, it will stick.
If you have that fridge magnet suspended above a powerful electromagnet, the paperclip will fly off the fridge magnet and fall to the electromagnet.

It is about which (apparent) force is greater.
There are so many examples of this it isn't funny.

Assuming an object with the same density as Earth, the force of gravity at the surface is proportional to the radius (which the apparent centripetal force is as well)
Working:
F_g=GMm/r^2
M=V*rho
V=(4/3)*pi*r^3
therefore M=(4/3)*pi*r^3*rho.
Therefore F_g=G*(4/3)*pi*r^3*rho*m/r^2
=(4/3)*G*pi*rho*r
Also
F_c=omega^2*r

Earth has a radius of 6400 km, or 6.4 million meters.
If you take a ball that is 1 m in diameter, the force (just focusing on gravity) due to Earth will be roughly 6.4 million times as strong as it is for the ball.
So if you had water on the bottom of the sphere, you have 1 unit of force holding it to the sphere, and 6.4 million units pulling it to Earth.
Which do you think will win?

The same applies to your flat Earth.
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.

22731
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ISS (real) and Gravity (fake)
« on: December 09, 2016, 12:59:40 PM »
ISS PATH :

You sure do like spouting crap.
The top is approximately correct, and appears to be a great circle on a globe.
The lower one doesn't actually match. It's path through Africa is wrong.

Also, a key thing the lower one is missing is that the path isn't a circle. That is because Earth is turning below the ISS, so its path appears to shift.

So on the FE, the path makes no sense. But it makes perfect sense on a globe.

FLORIDA - MOSCOW PATH :

Again, the bottom image doesn't actually match.
It is close, but it doesn't quite match.
This is because again it is merely a projection of a spherical Earth and thus gets some things wrong.
Also, flight paths are not typically great circle routes unless they are over water.
They will typically fly through various "corridors".

MAN ON THE "MOON" :

Yes, you have clearly photo-shopped an image.
Guess what? Fake pictures of space doesn't mean all are fake.

NASA - WE EXPLORE EVERYTHING BUT SPACE :

What makes you say they aren't exploring space? Is it because they appear to drop because of the curvature of Earth?
I guess you think that the sun mustn't be that high then because it does the same thing....

FLAT EARTH ZIGZAG PATTERN ISSUE :

Really?
Your zig-zag argument has been shown to be almost pure bullshit.

It conclusively proves that Earth must be very distant from the sun and completely refutes the main flat earth "model".

22732
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ISS (real) and Gravity (fake)
« on: December 09, 2016, 12:45:18 PM »
Imagine what a mess the toilets would be at that altitude.
Not when the plane's pressurised.

Really?
This crap again?

Guess what? Pressure wont help you.
Pressure would be exerting a force on an object inside the pressurised cabin in all directions.
It wont keep things held down.

22733
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Aurora
« on: December 09, 2016, 12:42:21 PM »
So like usual, you have nothing except a bunch of baseless claims.

22734
haa this confirms what i orignally thought : THEY WERE LIVE, so all the BS about delaying and playing separately is worthless

quote:
"An astronaut and a rock singer recorded an original song together and released it today (Feb. 8) as the first duet of new music performed simultaneously in space and on the ground."

http://www.space.com/19694-hadfield-song-duet-space.html

FE wins

Jeff

No. That quote doesn't indicate it was live.
It merely indicates that they both contributed to the recording of the song, and they were recording it at the same time (or similar time).

Regardless, your delay is pure BS.
The delay required to reach the ISS (assuming good positioning) is pretty much nothing.

So no, you still have no basis to claim that FE wins.

FE continues to grasp at straws like a pathetic child that wont accept Santa isn't real.

22735
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ISS (real) and Gravity (fake)
« on: December 08, 2016, 01:08:49 PM »
if we suppose that what keeps up firmly to the ground isn't gravity but something else, we can assume that maybe the attraction isn't linear to the distance.

Then, would it be possible that in altitude, we reach a kind of Zero G effect due to lack of attraction? Thus the ISS could well be a kind of airplane and they could just fake the roudness of the earth, but all the live feeds and the videos from the ISS would be real stuff?

Jeff

People don't say it is linear.
They say it follows an inverse square law, i.e. the force is inversely proportional to the distance squared.

You don't need to discard gravity, you just need to show it follows a different rule, and explain it.

Most other ideas have it worse, like UA, which has it constant but magical.

As for those who have observed it, any entity that has put something into space, as well as a few that have made measurements, but it is quite hard to measure due to how weak gravity is (or how light objects are).

22736
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE VS GE moon landing
« on: December 08, 2016, 12:43:05 PM »
I cant believe 20 persons think moon landings occured
Have you not studied the subject? I mean come on it is so obvious
More obvious than FE actually
Opération lune (.  The dark side of the moon) definitively proves it, "mokumentary" or not

I have studied it.
I found out that they did not have the technology to fake the moon landings, at least not in the way it was done with such long "live" broadcasts, and that it would have been easier for them to just go to the moon.

I find enough evidence to indicate that they did go to the moon and enough evidence to indicate faking it would have been impossible.
That leads me to the conclusion that they did go to the moon.

All I see against that is pathetic crap, where people are grasping at straws.

This is just like RE/GE.

I find enough evidence to indicate that Earth is round, and enough evidence to indicate a conspiracy to cover up it being flat would be practically impossible, and enough evidence that indicates it isn't flat, at least not any of the models so far proposed. (and no, even us being in warped 4D space so the surface of Earth follows a curve in the 4th dimension doesn't work. The only thing that does work is a spherical Earth in flat (Euclidian) space. The 2 are not equivalent).
And all I see against a round Earth or for a flat Earth is pathetic crap, with blatant lies about the distances or ignoring refraction for pictures claiming missing curvature (even though these pictures show missing land which should be visible on a flat Earth) , pure nonsense about things like a "missing orbital sagnac effect" even though this "effect" is "observed" (quotes due to complications between the effect of the orbit vs the effect of rotation and the sidereal day vs solar day), lies about perspective to try and incorporate Earth's curvature into perspective to pretend it is flat, and so on.

This leads me to conclude Earth is round.


22737
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« on: December 08, 2016, 12:34:16 PM »
Okay lets suppose i found a way to suppress gravity

We put the pendulum inside a shed or whatever and we pull the ball in the position of launching it, except the pendulum will not oscillate due to the lack gravity obviously


We rotate the shed slowly
Will :
1) everything That is inside the shed will rotate?
2) or the pendulum will keep its original position thus showing a different angle from the start?

Either case GE is f@cked, ill explain why later

Jeff

If you remove gravity, the pendulum wont exist, at least not as a pendulum.
What would be causing it to oscillate?

I know why you think either way GE is fucked.
If everything inside the shed rotates, then the pendulum should rotate as well.
If it stays still, then why would anything rotate on Earth.

Again, this has to do with the atmosphere rotating with us, and objects already having momentum from Earth's rotation, but remember, we have gravity to stop us flying off.
In the case you gave, the ball stays put. It has no initial momentum from the rotation of the shed, and thus the air would need to force it to rotate.
If you had it rotating with the shed and then released it, it would hit the wall of the shed as there is nothing to hold it in place (or the roof if it is attached to a string that wont let it hit the wall.

22738
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Better lie
« on: December 08, 2016, 12:24:56 PM »
This is why I find it futile discussing with you. No matter what answer you get, if it doesn't match your expected response then in your opinion it becomes dishonest crap only the sole basis that you disagree. The contradictions you state are flawed because you're applying hardcore Christian beliefs (which are indeed flawed beyond repair) to my statements when I didn't state anything of the sort. Way to discuss ::)

You find it futile because I am not accepting your bullshit.

It isn't the expected response I am waiting for. It is a response to the question asked.

It has nothing to do with me disagreeing.
It is entirely to do with you repeatedly avoiding the question.

No. I'm not applying beliefs to your statements.
However, you repeatedly assert pure bullshit about me, continually claiming I am ignorant or the like just because I'm not agreeing with you, even though I made it clear I understand that.

Now, would you like to try and be honest and answer the questions I asked, or admit the theist in the hypothetical argument was wrong, not the atheist?

22739
you could do that for the audio, but the video is also in sync, that can't be faked
I don't think you understood.

It would be akin to you singing to a music video.
You watch the video and sing where you are meant to.

That doesn't require the video to be a live stream.

NASA could have gotten a recording of him singing, all by himself, and then put that on the screen and got the band to play along.
He wouldn't hear or see the band.

But I think it is just more likely that they had a decent connection.

yes you can also argue that is is all CGI and nobody we seen exist really, it's a kinda bad argument if you tell me
Yes. Arguing it is all CGI or the like would be a bad argument.
Just like saying NASA has a time delay to simulate communicating to space, but then didn't use it for this.

But I'm doing neither. Instead I am pointing out the light time delay required for communication would not introduce a significant delay (assuming good positioning) and thus wouldn't be a serious issue and that any delay (especially over 1 second) would be caused by the processing of the signal and equipment used.

people would react if suddently the delay was off during an interview live on the ISS
If you just left it at surprise, you could have left out the ISS part.
People will be surprised if a delay suddenly wasn't in any interview.
We get massive delays in interviews, even when they are in the same city.

It is entirely due to the shitty set up they have and is in no way indicative of the communication between NASA and the ISS.

plus i suppose NASA thinks masses are dumb (aren't they) and they would not notice anyway.
Then why bother with the delay in the interviews?
And no, they know there are some seriously insane people looking for any excuse to call bullshit on the reality of space. So they wouldn't give them anything.

22740
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Moon is a Wrecking Ball.
« on: December 08, 2016, 12:10:28 PM »
You don't seem to understand how anything works do you?

If it was made of helium, then it requires high pressure to remain solid. So if the pressure is less up there, there isn't a chance for it to be a solid. It also requires extremely low temperatures.

Reducing pressure makes the boiling point (or sublimation point) and typically also the melting point decrease, not increase.

Pages: 1 ... 756 757 [758] 759 760 ... 767