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 - John Davis

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 436
31
Flat Earth General / Re: Scientific method and FE
« on: March 29, 2019, 09:46:16 PM »
I will objectively say though relativity is pretty nice in those regards. But yeah - tomorrow. The Tao that can be named...

32
Flat Earth General / Re: Scientific method and FE
« on: March 29, 2019, 09:44:58 PM »
Does it not just take a few for falsification to act?

Of course not. You can drone on for ages writing off discrepancy after displacency,

What of it? It will be lost like that of those fought against the last view. And that before it, and every astronomy I might cite. They are but the wind on the seat of advance.

33
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinite plane + sun?
« on: March 29, 2019, 09:33:44 PM »
You are the one with the alternate view of a pseudo-force that turns about space and time to make a straight line that is curved around a flat earth.

34
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinite plane + sun?
« on: March 29, 2019, 09:32:40 PM »
There is no alternate law of gravity and motion, Its the same shit.

35
The Lounge / Re: How Do You Take Your Coffee?
« on: March 29, 2019, 09:18:21 PM »
When I drink coffee - its like a secret sin. I know its awful, but when I bite the bitter sweet bucket of bullshit goes down full gullet. Its like death is saying - Yeah not now - bit a little faster.

36
Flat Earth General / Re: Scientific method and FE
« on: March 29, 2019, 09:05:54 PM »
I apologize. I have had too many spirits and must abide for the night. Yet I find it hard to say any examples of relativity have not been falsified.  Very weak fields like those utilized by the standard model fall apart signifying collapse of the overall dialogue. On the larger scale we have the death of aether signifying its beginning of usefulness and its necessity in relativity.

Does anyone know what currency they use in 1809?

37
Flat Earth General / Re: Scientific method and FE
« on: March 29, 2019, 08:57:46 PM »
The way cannot not be named. To not know everything is not the same as not knowing anything. But where can I hold these arguments? Amongst the Toaist and Literalist? No.

There should be higher a higher standard. Have you felt you met it?

How does my example not falsify it? And to you - falsify one idea for me of the round earth.

38
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I proved gravity by archimedes principle
« on: March 29, 2019, 02:48:34 PM »
You have done well because this is really true (by the way I write g instead of k :) ). F = gV(ρ-ρ) => F = gVρ - gVρ => F = mg - gVρ  which is my formula. So you have just proved I am right. You just counted the vector addition of gravity and upthrust force in one formula :).
No, I haven't proven you right at all.
I provided a formula based upon density, with no need for 2 separate forces.
You have no actual explanation for your 2 separate forces. You just repeatedly assert they exist.

So are you going to try and provide any actual proof or explanation or at least admit you have none? Or will you continue with your childish assertions?
I have to admit, I may have judged you unfairly Jack. My apologies.

39
Flat Earth General / Re: Scientific method and FE
« on: March 29, 2019, 02:43:38 PM »
There are also the many examples of relativity being falsified, which are open problems. For example the flyby anomaly. Without a model of gravity, a great many round earth arguments start to fall to dust.

40
Flat Earth General / Re: Scientific method and FE
« on: March 29, 2019, 02:42:40 PM »
Can you give me an example of falsification of RE? I have seen that attempted in many FE videos. What is your attempt?
I don't think falsification exists - or at least is noted and acted upon - historically or in studies I've read around its use in current academia or the wider intellectual community. This would lead me to believe its not very important.

However, here are two examples; one historical and one more modern.

I've mention in the past heliocentric theory having been falsified from the get go, and yet it lived long enough to show its use due to its gained popularity and its appeal to the next generation of thinkers.

A more modern example might be around the big bang. For example in the early to late 2000s, Big Bang theorists had to reject their view due to a number of reasons; rather than do so, they instead reintroduced, sneakily, a preferred coordinate system which by its nature can be seen to undermine a great many other views that must exist for their theory to make sense.

41
Flat Earth General / Re: New to flat earthers. A question
« on: March 29, 2019, 02:20:05 PM »
It is likely that many things are a simulation of a higher order computer, the laws of the universe as observed only allow for so much to occur. The answer to many inconsistencies could be that they are not the actual rules of the universe, and they are merely a simulation meant to observe other scenarios. If this is the case then we should act as though we are not in a simulation, or else all this will be for nothing. It is a flawed system if components are capable of seeing what they're part of, it does ruin the test, but we are also intelligent enough to see what our purpose is and do it anyway.
Inconsistencies are not consistent with an artificial simulation. How do you account for this?
Inconsistencies can only exist in an artificial environment, the natural would be smooth and designed to be natural, there would be flow and each part would align with every other. Only an artificial environment, that is to say a simulation, could have any inconsistency as it would be programmed piece by piece, there would be borders or parameters that were not aligned or accounted for and glitches resulting from situations not foreseen. Only God can make a perfect system. Inconsistencies align only with an unnatural environment, that is to say a simulation. Whether we are dreamers or entities of data is uncertain.
I understand your argument now; thanks for explaining. Mark Sargent I believe is a fan of the simulation argument (or at least a faked world) as is Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

42
Flat Earth General / Re: Scientific method and FE
« on: March 29, 2019, 01:12:50 PM »
1 thing I have noticed about FEs is their refusal to believe in experimental results.
The Scientific method basically says
1) form a hypothesis (i.e. the earth is flat)
2) create an experiment to test your theory (pick a test)
3) analyze the results
4) draw a conclusion

if your test confirms your theory, great.  Share the data so that other people can replicate your results and confirm your theory.
But if your test results disprove your theory.  there are several options, either your theory was wrong, or the test was invalid.
if you believe the test was invalid, you can go back to the test and try to isolate variables and further refine the results.
Or you can come up with another experiment using different criteria.
Or you revise the theory.
but in any case, you have to be open to the possibility that the theory is wrong, which is something i see FEs struggle with.  They are so convinced they are right, they refuse to accept any 'proof' to the contrary.
In the Beyond the Curve film the guy was using a ring laser gyroscope to 'prove' the earth does not rotate.  It found rotation that matched accepted scientific consensus (the earth rotates 15 degrees per hour).  A typical scientist might react with: "Maybe we conducted the test wrong or we didn't account for some variable.  Or maybe our theory that the earth does not rotate is wrong," 
A scientist might believe there was something with the approach to the experiment or idea behind it.
How did the guy in the film react. His response was "we do not accept that result".
The difference in the thought process is subtle but very important and it gives you an insight into the mindset of most FEs.
The film has been brought up in several other threads so i wont say anything more about it here.  I just wanted to point out a very important but overlooked line in the film.

This is why it is so difficult to convince FEs they are wrong.  Even if they do an experiment that proves the earth is round, then the experiment is wrong because they already 'know' the earth is flat.


I see this constantly in round earth science. If falsification happened as you claim it does, we wouldn't have heliocentric theory in the first place. More than this, how do you think we came to our belief set as it stands now? Do you not think we modified our theory again and again due to falsification?

43
Flat Earth General / Re: How the Government cover-up is impossible
« on: March 29, 2019, 01:11:31 PM »
Nevermind making sure the governments don't blab, you've got to hope all these people don't spill the beans:

airline crew
air force air crew
ships crew
astronauts
private space companies
anyone involved in designing, building or launching spacecraft
anyone involved in telecoms (ie, phone companies, TV companies, radio stations, radio hams)
fuel buyers for airlines and ships
all astronomers, professional or amateur
all scientists involved in physics, earth sciences, atmospherics
all school children who have launched high altitude balloons

I'm sure there are many more, feel free to add them below...
This list is pretty silly. I suppose the janitors at NASA need to be in on it too?

44
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Space travel cannot be faked
« on: March 29, 2019, 10:01:29 AM »
Rather than ridicule, what about explaining what sort of "curved space" might cause that sort of thing?
Photoshop is the kind of "curved space" that would produce that nonsense.
What about some evidence because there are plenty of photos from sources other than NASA or even the USA.
Some show the earth and moon from near the moon and thousands are from far enough away to show almost a whole hemisphere.

And you earlier said this:
They aren't faked. We are mistaken.

So which is it?
Obviously, not every single picture a child finger paints of a globe is legitimate representation. Yet most I'd wager do a fair job better than this. I have no doubt many, if not most, images of the earth are faked. Probably not for any real reason other than marketing and design. Mr Blue Marble certainly states he stitches together his Blue Marble.

45
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Space travel cannot be faked
« on: March 29, 2019, 09:59:14 AM »
So, I fail to see how  space missions can be faked or why anyone would want to.
You missed the point.

They aren't faked. We are mistaken.
Really? Why would anyone take any notice of your baseless hypotheses? All you did was post a hypothetical question.
Is it not possible that a flat earth in curved space would indeed appear curved?

Not only does the earth look "curved" but it also appears to be a rotating spherical object.


Your "curved space" does have some very interesting properties.
What a great photo! Thanks for sharing it with us! Let me put that right up on the Fridge.
Rather than ridicule, what about explaining what sort of "curved space" might cause that sort of thing?
I couldn't even imagine what kind of mental gymnastics one must perform to justify anything causing "this sort of thing."

For one, the moon is traveling tangental to the surface of the earth. Let alone it being shadowed by some magic invisible object when entering and exiting the frame.

46
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinite plane + sun?
« on: March 29, 2019, 09:52:24 AM »
I don't know. Most of the things he proposed. Have you read his body of work?
You don't know ::)! Right, if you don't know I'll just ignore what you say.

The master fudger.
So what are your alternate Laws of Motion and Gravitation that might be used in the design many civil, mechanical and aeronautical engineering projects.

To be useful and likely to be accepted, your alternate Laws of Motion and Gravitation must represent reality at least better than Newton's Laws.
For example, his universe had to be held together (or apart as it is) by the will of god. He also declared himself god's chosen. He was a student of alchemy. He was obsessed with what he considered were 'sacred' numbers, and often this made it into his serious work. He also poisoned himself with mercury and lead.

47
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air pressure doesnt exist without gravity
« on: March 29, 2019, 08:47:31 AM »
In UA the force would be the pseudoforce of gravity as the plane accelerates upwards.

In an infinite plane, it would be gravity.

On a non-euclidean flat earth, it would be due to the pseudoforce of gravity.

48
The Lounge / Re: How Do You Take Your Coffee?
« on: March 29, 2019, 08:17:52 AM »
I used to take it black. Now a bit of sugar and creamer.

49
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Space travel cannot be faked
« on: March 27, 2019, 11:51:59 PM »
How is the 50s fridge ad cartoon more believable than that nonsense.

50
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Space travel cannot be faked
« on: March 27, 2019, 11:50:50 PM »

51
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinite plane + sun?
« on: March 27, 2019, 11:46:26 PM »
The master fudger.

52
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinite plane + sun?
« on: March 27, 2019, 11:45:47 PM »
I don't know. Most of the things he proposed. Have you read his body of work?

53
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Navigation tools disprove flat earth
« on: March 27, 2019, 11:44:01 PM »
It was a pity.

54
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I proved gravity by archimedes principle
« on: March 27, 2019, 11:32:01 PM »
What is your reference point? The one "star"? It produces what it produces. Probably close to what we observe. You can build a lot of theories off that. Some might gain popularity, but they are all off a very limited set of data. How hot is the sun? Hot enough to produce the heat we see; How big would it have to be to produce that heat?

Well probably however big it is.

55
Flat Earth General / Re: Results from the past 2 years of absence...
« on: March 27, 2019, 11:25:30 PM »
Ah, so what is real then?

56
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Space travel cannot be faked
« on: March 27, 2019, 11:20:48 PM »
Good design guys. Great job.

57
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Space travel cannot be faked
« on: March 27, 2019, 11:20:04 PM »
Just look at that bugger go with his fake drop shadow and all, in a straight line not even pretending to orbit the earth. What a fucker,

58
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Space travel cannot be faked
« on: March 27, 2019, 11:16:54 PM »
So, I fail to see how  space missions can be faked or why anyone would want to.
You missed the point.

They aren't faked. We are mistaken.
Really? Why would anyone take any notice of your baseless hypotheses? All you did was post a hypothetical question.
Is it not possible that a flat earth in curved space would indeed appear curved?

Not only does the earth look "curved" but it also appears to be a rotating spherical object.


Your "curved space" does have some very interesting properties.
What a great photo! Thanks for sharing it with us! Let me put that right up on the Fridge.
Rather than ridicule, what about explaining what sort of "curved space" might cause that sort of thing?
Photoshop is the kind of "curved space" that would produce that nonsense.

60
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Navigation tools disprove flat earth
« on: March 27, 2019, 11:00:38 PM »
Why don't you google it google.com.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 436