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 - jargo

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
61
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Retroreflectors on the Moon
« on: January 23, 2009, 09:01:51 AM »
How do they measure volume? Oh wait, they don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barometric_formula

That formula works the same way both on FE and RE.

62
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Retroreflectors on the Moon
« on: January 22, 2009, 10:58:21 AM »
All gas tests are done in small test tubes, but gasses behave differently when in very large volumes. No one has ever done a whole test on the atmosheild.

Yes they have. they have for example measured atmospheric pressure on sea level and on top of Mount everest and seen that pressure builds exactly the same way on larger scales. And what causes the gas to form  a 5000 km high cylinder that does not flow over the ice wall? 5000 km atmoshield is even more impossible on FE than RE.

63
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Retroreflectors on the Moon
« on: January 22, 2009, 10:52:17 AM »
why some gases are heavier than others.... thats one aspect we dont fully understand

Their atom weight is larger?

64
Flat Earth Debate / Re: NASA caught in their own lies!
« on: January 22, 2009, 08:59:11 AM »
But the astronauts themselves claimed they could not see stars.

To see the stars you would need to look away any bright object such as surface of the moon and wear spacesuit helmet that does not have darkened glass.

They have also been quoted saying they could not see it from space, their space shuttle, etc.

They probably also have darkened windows. And besides you really can't easily see stars even through window of your own house if you have lights on inside.

65
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The principle of simplicity.
« on: January 22, 2009, 08:53:58 AM »
Quote
And I wonder why don't you wonder how Intel, AMD, DELL, IBM and so on can build processors, PC's and much more complex computers that we have never before seen.

I'm not questioning the existence of computers because I've seen and used them directly. There's emperical evidence that computers exist. But if Intel is claiming the existence of some never before seen quantum computer which it uses in its secret labs to crack codes for the government I would exercise a bit of skepticism.

Quote
Tom its the simplest explanation THAT EXPLAINS WHAT IS OBSERVED. If we had no evidence whatsoever that NASA had built the machines it claims then yes the simpler explanation would be that the machines have not been build. The issue is whether IN LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE it is simpler to suppose the evidence is fabricated than not.

An annoyed
Cinlef

It explains what is observed? I think you mean it explains what NASA tells us. I've never seen men on the moon, robots on mars, or probes exploring the solar system.

We can easily observe satellites and ISS for example with telescopes.

66
Flat Earth Debate / Re: NASA caught in their own lies!
« on: January 22, 2009, 08:48:32 AM »
But the astronauts themselves claimed they could not see stars.

To see the stars you would need to look away any bright object such as surface of the moon and wear spacesuit helmet that does not have darkened glass.

67
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Retroreflectors on the Moon
« on: January 22, 2009, 08:37:13 AM »
We do not understand 100% how gasses work.

What do you mean? Can you point out something where the current theories about behavior of gasses are wrong.

68
Flat Earth Debate / Re: NASA caught in their own lies!
« on: January 22, 2009, 08:35:38 AM »
You could see starts but camera could not, unless you used so long exposure that that surface of the moon becomes overexposed.

You can test this yourself. Try taking a picture of the stars during nighttime and remember the lenght of the exposure time you needed to use to make stars visible. Then take picture during daytime using the same exposure time and you'll see that the picture will be overexposed.

Edit. To see the stars you would need to look away any bright object such as surface of the moon and wear spacesuit helmet that does not have darkened glass.

69
Flat Earth Debate / Re: You weigh less on the way down in the an elevator
« on: January 20, 2009, 09:02:59 AM »
g changes according to altitude because stars exibit a slight gravitatinal pull. Read the faq.

If FE were correct the speed which earths gravity decreases would get faster as you would get higher because you would be getting closer to the object with gravitational pull. However it can be quite easily measured in ground and air based(no NASA required) experiments that the speed which gravity decreases gets slower when you get higher which would mean that you would be getting farther from the object with gravitational pull. 

70
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Falsification
« on: January 20, 2009, 08:43:15 AM »
I could not find any proper explanation for that strange concept of inertial motion so I am just going to say that if the observer would also be accelerating in RE-model then I agree with you. If not then no unless you can provide me some proof that earth is actually accelerating upwards.
The observer in RE is also accelerating upwards.

Then I agree with you on this one.

71
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Retroreflectors on the Moon
« on: January 20, 2009, 08:41:07 AM »
One observatory? To be proof it must be repeated. And it is correct, the atmoshield slows down light.
The furthest the Atmoshield can be is less than 5,000 km.

Proof?

If the atmoshield were any higher than the re predicts the atmospheric pressure would be much higher. Also if FE was correct the atmoshield would flow over the ice wall.

72
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Retroreflectors on the Moon
« on: January 20, 2009, 08:37:06 AM »
No answer from the FE-side so this another victory for RE. At least according to Tom Bishops logic. We have made claim and offerred proof for our claim. The FE side has also made claims, but produced no proof even if the burden of proof on those claims is on them.
I don't see any conclusive evidence.

We have some evidence for our claims you have none for yours. So  based on this evidence it is logical to assume that our claims are correct.
How can someone prove unicorns don't exist?

The existence of unicorns is unfalsiable claim. NASA tampering with measurement devices is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

73
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The principle of simplicity.
« on: January 19, 2009, 09:06:15 AM »
Quote
The scientific rule known as the principle of simplicity states that: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." and "Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses."

The Flat Earth theory is just not the simplest theory compared to the Round Earth theory!
All the natural things in this world can be explained by the theory of a round earth, while FE'ers have to involve the government, an ice wall, bendy light, an earth that just keeps on flying upwards, and all kinds of other juvenile things.

So, surrender, FE'ers, you make basic, basic scientific mistakes that is taught in middle school, and when you can't even stick to the general rules of scientific reasoning, your ideas just can't be taken seriously!

So what's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?


Earth is stone ball floating in space held together by gravity. There is no conspiracy.
vs.
Earth is as stone Cylinder accerelated by dark energy. Light bends upwards. There are giant gears in the sky held up there and rotated by some mystical energy. Sun and moon are some magical objects floating above earth held above earth by some mystical power. No one on the southern hemisphere haven't noticed the fact that during summer they never get more than 12 hours of sunlight even if RE says that they should. No one in South-Africa Chile or Australia have noticed that they have completely different star systems even if RE predicts otherwise. There is a huge 2000 years old conspiracy. Etc etc.

Which one is simpler Tom?

74
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Falsification
« on: January 19, 2009, 08:54:58 AM »
I have not claimed that. I have only claimed that you can't tell the difference between the two by jumping of a chair. Do you agree with me on that?
Yes.

Now, do you agree that since free-fall is an inertial motion, the apple is in fact not accelerating, but the observer is (due to the Earth's acceleration)?

I could not find any proper explanation for that strange concept of inertial motion so I am just going to say that if the observer would also be accelerating in RE-model then I agree with you. If not then no unless you can provide me some proof that earth is actually accelerating upwards.

75
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Retroreflectors on the Moon
« on: January 19, 2009, 08:41:39 AM »
No answer from the FE-side so this another victory for RE. At least according to Tom Bishops logic. We have made claim and offerred proof for our claim. The FE side has also made claims, but produced no proof even if the burden of proof on those claims is on them.
I don't see any conclusive evidence.

We have some evidence for our claims you have none for yours. So  based on this evidence it is logical to assume that our claims are correct.

76
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Falsification
« on: January 18, 2009, 01:35:50 PM »
I don't and that has been the whole point of this argument. There is no way to tell if gravity is pulling you downward or if earth is accelerating by jumping of a chair.
Therefore, your argument, that we are accelerating downward, is meaningless.

I have not claimed that. I have only claimed that you can't tell the difference between the two by jumping of a chair. Do you agree with me on that?

77
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Falsification
« on: January 18, 2009, 01:32:25 PM »
You have claimed that you can feel the difference between gravity pulling you downward and earth accelerating upward. Yet you have failed to tell us what that difference is. There is the big hole in your logic.
I made no such claim.

Then how can you tell if you are pulled down by gravity or if earth is accelerated upward by dark energy if you can't feel the difference?

What did I just asked you to do? Explain that huge hole in your logic?
If you decide to end this discussion at least answer this.
You asked me to tell you what the effects of gravity would feel like. How am I supposed to know that?
I am sorry I misunderstood you.
Very well so that does not make the existence of gravity irrelevant then at least in this discussion.
This discussion is irrelevant. You refuse to admit defeat over the mountains of evidence presented against you. You are just trolling now.

What mountain of evidence? You haven't presented any. There is still a big hole in your logic. You have claimed that you know that earth is accelerating upwards by jumping of a chair. Yet you have also claimed that you can't tell the difference if is actually gravity pulling you you downwards. That seems like pretty big hole in logic and victory for RE to me.


RE is not Newtons theory.
He is certainly a major prophet of your religion.
Wery well




78
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Falsification
« on: January 18, 2009, 01:18:24 PM »
You don't feel your own weight? How would you be feeling different if it were gravity pulling you down instead of acceleration of earth?
If you fail to answer this question it is again another victory for RE.
I surely don't feel my own weight when I'm free-falling. Where is gravity now?

During free-fall you have mass but you don't weight anything.

Neither there is any evidence that earth is accelerating upwards. If you jump off a chair from an outside observer it looks like you are accelerating towards earth so with your logic, you jumping of a chair can be used as a proof that earth has gravity and it is not accelerating upwards.
How do you know that you are accelerating downward in your frame of reference?

I don't and that has been the whole point of this argument. There is no way to tell if gravity is pulling you downward or if earth is accelerating by jumping of a chair.

Earth accelerating upwards is just as unobservable and the unfalsifiable if your only source of information is that test.
So is downward acceleration. You basically can't tell the difference.
see before

Step 1: Clear a space in the room.
Step 2: Pick up an apple
Step 3: Drop the apple

Does the apple accelerate towards the floor or does the floor accelerate towards the apple ?
Free-falling objects don't accelerate. In fact, according to General Relativity, free-fall is an inertial motion. Therefore, the floor accelerates up to meet the apple.

To observer it seems like the apple is accelerating towards the floor.

79
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Falsification
« on: January 18, 2009, 01:07:45 PM »
In other words you can't name a single thing that you would feel different if were gravity pulling you down instead of earths acceleration so you have still failed to close those huge holes in your logic.
My logic? I was playing devil's advocate for RET. Far too difficult.


You have claimed that you can feel the difference between gravity pulling you downward and earth accelerating upward. Yet you have failed to tell us what that difference is. There is the big hole in your logic.
Are you asking us to provide proof for your claims?
Are you seriously asking me this after what you just asked me to do?
What did I just asked you to do? Explain that huge hole in your logic?
If you decide to end this discussion at least answer this.
You can not use that as an argument if we are debating about the fact if earth is flat or round.
That was not my argument, that was my conclusion.
Very well so that does not make the existence of gravity irrelevant then at least in this discussion.
It was you who claimed that philosophers stone had something to do with RE.
If you take Newton's theories of gravity at face value, why not his theories of the occult? ;)

RE is not Newtons theory.

80
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Falsification
« on: January 18, 2009, 12:49:35 PM »
You don't feel your own weight? How would you be feeling different if it were gravity pulling you down instead of acceleration of earth?
If you fail to answer this question it is again another victory for RE.
I am not well-versed in RE mythology, but I suppose it would vary immensely depending on the theory of gravity to which you prescribe. Perhaps the friction generated by the countless gravitons enveloping and rubbing against one's body would create a pleasant warmth as you floated to the ground...or maybe the warping of space-time caused by existence itself would allow you to briefly see into the future. "

In other words you can't name a single thing that you would surely feel different if were gravity pulling you down instead of earths acceleration so you have still failed to close those huge holes in your logic.

I'll leave this speculation to your theologians/"scientists

Are you asking us to provide proof for your claims?

As the earth is flat and gravity does not exist, it is irrelevant.
You can not use that as an argument if we are debating about the fact if earth is flat or round.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

With saying that you are also claiming that some of the RE models are incorrect.


Don't ask me. Your prophet Newton was the "expert". Roll Eyes

It was you who claimed that philosophers stone had something to do with RE.

81
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Falsification
« on: January 18, 2009, 12:10:56 PM »

Newton was also a self-proclaimed alchemist. Not exactly the stablest of sources...

That hardly discredits him, considering that his equations can very closely predict the movement of planets, stars, and objects on earth.
Can the other round earthers please confirm that the Philosopher's Stone is part of RET? This certainly explains a great deal...

How could a magical stone be somehow be related to earth being flat or round?

82
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Falsification
« on: January 18, 2009, 12:08:57 PM »
Once again, there is no reason to assume that your magical "force" is pulling the apple downwards with its massless graviton minions. The earth simply accelerates upwards to meet the apple. This can be observed with the naked eye.

How there is no reason to assume that massless graviton minions exicst, but there is reason to assume that magical "force" of dark energy is pushing the earth upwards. How is the darkenergy more believable than gravitons? Another huge hole in your logic.
How? When I step off the edge of a chair, I do not feel a bunch of tiny hands pulling me downward. I can see the earth moving upwards to meet me. Gravity is not experienced; the acceleration is obviously on the part of the earth.

You don't feel your own weight? How would you be feeling different if it were gravity pulling you down instead of acceleration of earth?
If you fail to answer this question it is again another victory for RE.


Edit. If gravitons exicst they would be so tiny that you would not be able to feel effect of individual gravitons. Gravitons also exist in the FE since celestial objects have gravitational pull in the FE theory so you can't hide behind that fact without also debunking part of the FE theory.

83
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Falsification
« on: January 18, 2009, 11:53:13 AM »
Once again, there is no reason to assume that your magical "force" is pulling the apple downwards with its massless graviton minions. The earth simply accelerates upwards to meet the apple. This can be observed with the naked eye.

How there is no reason to assume that massless graviton minions exicst, but there is reason to assume that magical "force" of dark energy is pushing the earth upwards. How is the darkenergy more believable than gravitons? Another huge hole in your logic.

The problem with you FE:rs is that you have double standards we always have to provide proof for our claims but you for some reason you do not. Another problem with you is that when we point a hole in your logic you often simply stop responding.

84
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Retroreflectors on the Moon
« on: January 18, 2009, 11:46:09 AM »
No answer from the FE-side so this another victory for RE. At least according to Tom Bishops logic. We have made claim and offerred proof for our claim. The FE side has also made claims, but produced no proof even if the burden of proof on those claims is on them.

85
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Falsification
« on: January 18, 2009, 11:36:59 AM »
This is why the debate can never end. Every time we present evidence of something, RET invents an answer to explain it... ::)

There are elephant size holes in your logic and we have pointed them out to you. If you just simply refuse to answer them then it is another victory for the RE. You could at least answer the following question:


Quote
Step 1: Clear a space in the room.
Step 2: Pick up an apple
Step 3: Drop the apple

Does the apple look accelerating towards the floor or does the floor look accelerating towards the apple ?

86
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Falsification
« on: January 18, 2009, 11:23:55 AM »
Step 1: Clear a space in the room.
Step 2: Pick up an apple
Step 3: Drop the apple

Does the apple accelerate towards the floor or does the floor accelerate towards the apple ?
We can directly observe that the apple is accelerating towards earth so with your logic we have
proven that it is gravity that pulls that apple towards earth.
 

87
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Falsification
« on: January 18, 2009, 11:20:55 AM »
And RET predicts that you will accelerate downwards to meet the floor.  Since the results would be exactly the same on a FE and a RE (you and floor meet regardless of the reason), the experiment is inconclusive and you have not falsified anything.
Except, as Tom pointed out, there is no evidence to suggest that you are accelerating downwards. Such a phenomenon would require the unobservable and the unfalsifiable. Very convenient on the part of RET... ::)

Neither there is any evidence that earth is accelerating upwards. If you jump off a chair from an outside observer it looks like you are accelerating towards earth so with your logic, you jumping of a chair can be used as a proof that earth has gravity and it is not accelerating upwards. Earth accelerating upwards is just as unobservable and the unfalsifiable if your only source of information is that test.

88
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Falsification
« on: January 18, 2009, 08:11:34 AM »
Quote
Do you also see earth accelerate upwards when you stand still and see someone else stepping off a chair?

Yep.


You must have something wrong with your eyes. If I see someone jumping off a chair I see him accelerating downwards not earth accelerating upwards.

89
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Falsification
« on: January 18, 2009, 01:32:54 AM »
Quote
No he didn't, but neither did he observe earth accelerating upwards.

I've seen the earth accelerate upwards after walking off the edge of a chair.

Do you also see earth accelerate upwards when you stand still and see someone else stepping off a chair?

This debate is rather silly since there is absolutely no way of telling if earth is accelerating upwards  or gravity is pulling you down by stepping of a chair.

However there are other test to determine that. For example gravity gets weaker as you get higher which it wouldn't if earth were accelerating upwards.

90
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Falsification
« on: January 18, 2009, 01:20:38 AM »
Quote
I am going to go with gravity

So did you observe space-time bending or tiny graviton particles come up and pull your friend down towards the earth?

No he didn't, but neither did he observe earth accelerating upwards.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6