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 - Mikey T.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 97
1
Welcome, enjoy the show.

2
Also, you two keep getting hung up on the word plenty.  You saying there are zero things that can be considered data that could possibly be also attributed to a FE model means that PLENTY can be one.  More than zero things is PLENTY to disprove zero things possible.
Have a nice day.

3
Well, Timeisup, looks like you and I are well and truly beaten in this debate, huh? Jackblack and Mickey T are too smart for you and I. They sure showed us! Guess it's time to throw in the towel.....  :'(

But before we do, I'm sure JackBlack or Mikey T would be only too willing to show us pair of "morons" the flat Earth model that can be created from all that flat earth data...... ;D ;D ;D

Just a couple of photos of your finished flat earth model relying solely on flat earth data should do the trick, boys! Like I said, your only mandatory requirement is your flat earth model must be of the entire Earth, oh and I think we can all agree this goes without saying, that all country shapes and continent shapes and distances between continents must be true to scale.

I'm not asking for much! Just the bare minimum!

You both say a flat earth model can be made soley from flat earth data, so time to put your money where your big mouths are! Go for it! Looking forward to seeing what you pair of geniuses come up with!
I see you are trying the same strawman tactics as Timmy. 
When have I said I would build a FE model?  Where have I said it should even exist? 
 So I guess you are saying a model has to be 100 percent accurate now.  if so, show me a model that takes every single aspect of everything into account.  Better yet show me an accurate, 100 percent, globe Earth model.  You want every aspect to be there or it's not a model.  Go ahead smart guy, show me something that I can't point out a single aspect as not accounted for or exaggerated, or incorrect.  You can't, it doesn't exist.  That doesn't mean the Earth is flat.  That means you dont have a clue as to what you are talking about.  You don't understand what a model is beyond your to scale creations, that isn't the only type. If you can't provide this, you lose, if it doesnt have to be 100 percent accurate, you lose.
This is the trap you idiots set for yourself.  Give a FE supporter any reason to discredit you or RE, and they will take it.  You're making impossible standards for them that can be turned onto you. 
You'll try, you'll scream and cry, show me a computerized globe, but I will easily find a fault.  And you definately will continue to lose this argument.
I get it, Jack pissed you off.  He pisses me off sometimes, get over it.  Stop playing this childish game.  For damn sure do not strawman my points again.  When you learn to make logical points that support your arguments without misrepresenting me, then  come back and try again. 

4
Flat Earth General / Re: How would a load cell weigh without gravity?
« on: December 05, 2022, 05:02:21 PM »
Ah, you're a "real" engineer.

My uncle Jim and my grandpa were both real engineers. They managed to get jobs at it, unlike me. You know what I noticed about them?

It wasn't the math background or science background. It was how you could just tell that They had the ability to visualize things. Like this.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/templegrandin/2019/10/07/temple-grandin-why-visual-thinking-is-a-different-approach-to-problem-solving/?sh=63bf79f26a0d

You can just look at something you want to put together and be like "and this nail needs to go in that way to hang this, and we're gonna put a bit on that, and then apply this much torque." and you see all of it being done. That's engineering, and it what nobody could teach you, but I sanity of these relatives have. I have it too. My father has book smarts but frankly, he can't do that. And it shows.

Real engineers make models that work because they know how objects behave in space. Then they often have to explain the math (I hated that "there's no wrong answer but we need you to show your work" bullshit that started creeping in with the rise of Common Core) to superiors. Sometimes it isn't about the math, it's visualizing the effect.

Fake engineers flood pages with fake math to mask their inadequacies. So no, we were talking about REAL engineers. I don't think either my late grandpa nor my uncle have been FE types, but of them, the only one who might have used gravity formulas was my grandpa (space program, and helped design the suits). Jim probably did not unless an overseer demanded some extra hot bullshit.

Also, you're a "real" engineer? What have you built or invented?
Yes, I am an engineer.  Just recently earned my third degree.  I'm what's known as a interdisciplinary engineer.  Computer, electrical and mechanical.  I also manage other engineers.  Know what you have to be able to do to prove our your "visualization" before i allow you to build it, or I assist you?  The math and physics(really just more math) behind it.  How does it move, how much force is on it and it provides, what is the shear force for the thing hanging out is s0ace if it has an arm, what tourqe does it experience from the gravitational pull on it.  Things like that.  Or what is your algorithm for this program, how does it decide how to do what you want, aka for a plc, the boolean algebra, for standard language, the algebra.
Math everywhere.  You can't do the math, I try to teach you, you still can't do it, you are fired. 
No engineer does anything without some form of math. 

5
Because...  they would have to accept that Jack is correct.  Still in a petty way, but actually correct about models, not all data 100% only points to spherical Earth.  There is plenty that could be used to support either, like personal observations from the ground, etc.  Even Eratosthenes' data could be interpreted as a close sun.  If you ignore other data, then there is some that could be used as a basis for a model.  It falls apart when trying to do multiple predictions from differing systems, i.e. sun movement and weather patterns.  But still a representation built from "chosen" data.  Key word there, chosen. 
But you know, it's fun to make asses out of ourselves just to avoid admitting being wrong.

So your doing the ‘PLENTY’ illusion now!

If you too have ‘PLENTY’ how about you reveal it rather than playing the pretence game!

Eratosthenes! It’s 2022 have you not noticed! Satellites orbit the earth along with people gazing upon it from the ISS!

It’s an inescapable fact it’s a sphere, hence any scientifically conducted  measurements will show exactly that.

There is no way any scientifically conducted experiment could give a result other than what the earth happens to be, a sphere.

If you dont agree how about you present some evidence rather than even more hollow pointless statements!
Do you have any reading comprehension at all?  Or do you just scan through to pick specific words to use to set up your strawman arguments?
Respond properly to what I said.

Are these mot your words?

 "There is plenty that could be used to support either, like personal observations from the ground, etc.  Even Eratosthenes' data could be interpreted as a close sun."

Im not surprised you want to disown them given just how inane they are. I understand you don't want to stand by them. After all how could you?
I'm not disowning anything you absolute waste of oxygen.  I said, you have no reading comprehension.  You just proved it.  You scanned through saw a trigger word, plenty, and went to town constructing a strawman.
Now, be an adult and properly respond or not at all.

Well if your not disowning them how about backing them up rather than get those tight little panties of yours in a right little twist!
Backing up what dumbass?  Do you not understand words and sentences?  Personal  observations from the ground.  I.e. what you can see from... the ground.  It's pretty much impossible to tell the difference with your eyes, but they are observations, therefore data.
As I said, and stop with the childish strawman of trying to say I believe in FE, that if you ignore all the data that specifically supports that the Earth is sphere then you can make a model.  A very inaccurate model, but a model.  Like the example jack used of the model of an atom ignoring scale, representing an electron as a ball, and a few other things but still a model.  Not 100% accurate, not all encompassing, a representation.  That atom model cannot be used to really make predictions, and neither can a FE model.  Still a model. 
But you my mentally challenged dancing fool, can't agree with any of that or you will seem to agree with Jack, your poor psyche could handle that.
Which is why I asked for your definition of a model... YOUR DEFINITION.  The one you are using to say there can be no FE models.  Also YOUR definition of scientific data, what you are using to say all FE claims can not be scientific. 
But you won't do that will you idiot.  You will just dance around more for me like the absolute fool you are.  I enthusiastically await further absolute destruction of all your illogical cult like ravings, again. 

6
Because...  they would have to accept that Jack is correct.  Still in a petty way, but actually correct about models, not all data 100% only points to spherical Earth.  There is plenty that could be used to support either, like personal observations from the ground, etc.  Even Eratosthenes' data could be interpreted as a close sun.  If you ignore other data, then there is some that could be used as a basis for a model.  It falls apart when trying to do multiple predictions from differing systems, i.e. sun movement and weather patterns.  But still a representation built from "chosen" data.  Key word there, chosen. 
But you know, it's fun to make asses out of ourselves just to avoid admitting being wrong.

So your doing the ‘PLENTY’ illusion now!

If you too have ‘PLENTY’ how about you reveal it rather than playing the pretence game!

Eratosthenes! It’s 2022 have you not noticed! Satellites orbit the earth along with people gazing upon it from the ISS!

It’s an inescapable fact it’s a sphere, hence any scientifically conducted  measurements will show exactly that.

There is no way any scientifically conducted experiment could give a result other than what the earth happens to be, a sphere.

If you dont agree how about you present some evidence rather than even more hollow pointless statements!
Do you have any reading comprehension at all?  Or do you just scan through to pick specific words to use to set up your strawman arguments?
Respond properly to what I said.

Are these mot your words?

 "There is plenty that could be used to support either, like personal observations from the ground, etc.  Even Eratosthenes' data could be interpreted as a close sun."

Im not surprised you want to disown them given just how inane they are. I understand you don't want to stand by them. After all how could you?
I'm not disowning anything you absolute waste of oxygen.  I said, you have no reading comprehension.  You just proved it.  You scanned through saw a trigger word, plenty, and went to town constructing a strawman.
Now, be an adult and properly respond or not at all. 

7
Flat Earth General / Re: How would a load cell weigh without gravity?
« on: December 05, 2022, 06:12:20 AM »

I'm pretty sure that real engineers only pull out gravity when they have to report to someone, and otherwise, they just design the thing.

Hi!   
A real engineer here. 
You are wrong. 
Thanks for playing.

8
Because...  they would have to accept that Jack is correct.  Still in a petty way, but actually correct about models, not all data 100% only points to spherical Earth.  There is plenty that could be used to support either, like personal observations from the ground, etc.  Even Eratosthenes' data could be interpreted as a close sun.  If you ignore other data, then there is some that could be used as a basis for a model.  It falls apart when trying to do multiple predictions from differing systems, i.e. sun movement and weather patterns.  But still a representation built from "chosen" data.  Key word there, chosen. 
But you know, it's fun to make asses out of ourselves just to avoid admitting being wrong.

So your doing the ‘PLENTY’ illusion now!

If you too have ‘PLENTY’ how about you reveal it rather than playing the pretence game!

Eratosthenes! It’s 2022 have you not noticed! Satellites orbit the earth along with people gazing upon it from the ISS!

It’s an inescapable fact it’s a sphere, hence any scientifically conducted  measurements will show exactly that.

There is no way any scientifically conducted experiment could give a result other than what the earth happens to be, a sphere.

If you dont agree how about you present some evidence rather than even more hollow pointless statements!
Do you have any reading comprehension at all?  Or do you just scan through to pick specific words to use to set up your strawman arguments?
Respond properly to what I said.

9
Because...  they would have to accept that Jack is correct.  Still in a petty way, but actually correct about models, not all data 100% only points to spherical Earth.  There is plenty that could be used to support either, like personal observations from the ground, etc.  Even Eratosthenes' data could be interpreted as a close sun.  If you ignore other data, then there is some that could be used as a basis for a model.  It falls apart when trying to do multiple predictions from differing systems, i.e. sun movement and weather patterns.  But still a representation built from "chosen" data.  Key word there, chosen. 
But you know, it's fun to make asses out of ourselves just to avoid admitting being wrong.

10
So, no answers, just more of the same.  Got it.

11

If you still firmly believe that the models of your idols are real scientific models, rather than fictional fantasies, while FE can never produce models, then why don't you provide a coherent, consistent set of requirements something must meet in order to be deemed a model, which can then be applied to the idols you worship?

Please explain what constitutes acceptable requirements.  Timmy did answer me a few days ago with, paraphrasing from memory since I'm on my phone, based on scientific data that can make predictions.  Not sure what his definition of scientific is though.


12
Firstly you have never ever produced any :
PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH SCIENTIFIC DATA’
I notice you yet again change the text.
This is what you said before:
IF you still firmly believe in this:-
“Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"
Trying to move the goalposts again are we?

If you need to change the words to change the meaning then that is YOUR lie, not mine.
If you think they are equivalent, then you have already accepted that I have provided it by acknowledging the red text.
So either way, it is YOUR lie, not mine.
It is a lie you need to keep on repeating because you can't permit such heresy.

The  mystery is why you keep avoiding presenting them!
Again, the "mystery" is why you need to keep on repeating your pathetic lies, rather than providing a coherent consisten set of requirements for something to meet to be deemed a model, which can then be applied to the product of those you worship.
The "mystery" is why you keep on deflecting rather than even attempting to defend your BS.

But we both know why this is, and it isn't a mystery at all; you can't defend your BS and it would be heresy to admit you were wrong.

One would have thought with all that ‘PLENTY TEAL FLAT EARTH DATA’ that you CLAIM exists there would be PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH ALTERNATIVE SCIENCE BOOKS.
Why should one think that?
Not everyone is as foolish as you.

The fact that you can’t means once more you loose.
If you make a claim, let me remind you:-
“Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"
SO BACK IT UP BLOCKHEAD AND STOP WITH THE DEFLECTIONS.
I have backed up my claims moron, and you have refused to refute that justification. Instead you just ignored them, and then eventually falsely claimed that there is no uncertainty in scientific measurements.

Conversely, you entirely refuse to justify your delusional BS at all.
So moron, how about you follow that advice, stop with the pathetic deflections and try justifying your BS?
Provide a coherent, consistent set of requirements which something must meet in order to be deemed a model.
Once you have done that, we can apply it to the products of your idols.

Now Mr. Blockhead says this:
You mean now Mr. Moron pretends that something that has been pointed out and explained several times is new to them, and will yet again entirely ignore it.

I don’t pretend they don’t exist as they don’t exist.
Yes, you do.
Every time you lie by claiming I have not provided data you are pretending they don't exist.

It you claim they exist why dont you present them.
Like I said, you just lie and pretend it doesn't exist, or look for pathetic excuses to dismiss.
So instead, we need to focus on what you accept as models and data, to establish a set of requirements of what makes a model.

But you will never provide, because you know that once you have, either the products of your idols wont meet it, or there is nothing to prevent a FE from meeting it.

What's stopping you Mr Moron?

Plenty means lots, so GIVE GIVE GIVE.
Well, technically plenty means:
a large or sufficient amount or quantity; more than enough.
It doesn't need to be lots, just sufficient.

And I have provided it, many many times, until finally making it red in order for you to acknowledge its existence.

YOU COULD JUST GIVE UP!
While you have no interest in accepting the truth and giving up your cult; I have no interest in letting you spout your delusional BS unchallenged.
I will continue to object to your BS.

But if you really don't want to admit you are wrong, you could just give up, especially considering as you have no interest in demonstrating you aren't wrong.

Your arguments using past examples of real scientific models are red herrings.
No, they aren't.
They are clear demonstrations that a model does not need to be correct to be a model.
They are clear demonstrations that Earth not being flat does not mean you can't have a FE model.
They are clear demonstrations that you can follow a scientific approach and produce an incorrect model.

The ideas that formed them, wrong thought they turned out to be were still founded on PLENTY REAL SCIENTIFIC DATA and reasoning.
Do you mean like the Bohr model, with sufficient evidence to show it was wrong before the model was made?

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FLAT EARTH SCIENCE. IT DOES NOT EXIST.
Which is just making your argument circular.
If you wish to assert such things to try and justify your claim, prove it.

And don't just prove that it doesn't exist, prove that it can't exist.


YOU JUST HAVE TO LAUGH!

Changing the goalpost I think not, thats just you squirming.

You are correct, in that this is what you originally said:-

"Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"

Are you trying to CLAIM  while squirming that non scientific data can be used to construct a scientific model? Now that would be odd, dont you think!

Because let me remind you this is the basis of your claim as you said :-

  “There can be a scientific FE model"

Which leads one to believe that there has to be alleged FE SCIENTIFIC DATA TO GO INTO THEIR ALLEGED SCIENTIFIC MODELS , that you claim exist.!

Make your mind up Mr. Blockhead.

Yet More smelly red herrings

YOU KEEP SAYING IN ANSWER TO YOU RED HERRINGS-

"No, they aren't.
They are clear demonstrations that a model does not need to be correct to be a model.
They are clear demonstrations that Earth not being flat does not mean you can't have a FE model.
They are clear demonstrations that you can follow a scientific approach and produce an incorrect model.

I agree a scientific model does not need to be correct to be valid! Ive said that time and time again so why repeat it? It just has to be SCIENTIFIC and FE has no science therefore it cant have any scientific data nor scientific model.

You have presented no FE scientific examples and you lie when you said you have. Prove me wrong by presenting some.....of course you won't you will just keep lying.
Please define SCIENCE, SCIENTIFIC, and model.  In a way that could be used to apply said definitions to this idiotic argument.

13
The problem is that the argument began over whether there could be an FE model or not, and could that model be based on scientific data. 
If you cherry pick your days, then you can build a model from it.  It will be essentially incorrect, but you can build a model from cherry picked data. 
Where this strawman filled thing has gone to is rather astounding.  All three are calling each other closet FE supporters now.  Noone is honestly refuting the others points, well one is doing much better at it, but all sides have almost completely devolved into who can build the best strawman at this point. 

14
That was an ace up your sleeve?  I really need to play cards again, I really missed something.
Can a model be inaccurate?  If we accept the atom models you showed, then yes. 
If models can be inaccurate then, FE ideas can be used to create an inaccurate model of Earth.  They can limit what evidence they choose to include, like ignoring scale and wave functions in the atom models.
If models have to be 100% accurate to be considered models,  then there are no real models as you could always pick some aspect that isnt accounted for or is simplified out of consideration. 
The whole beginning of this idiocy was Jack being petty, correct but petty, about how Timmy characterized models.  Timmy couldn't help himself and he had to take up an opposing argument to Jack's.  And now we watch Timmy self destruction, yet again.  All he had to say was Jack was being petty, reword his statement and move on, but nobody, can't agree with Jack at all.  Gotta let Jack make him basically admit to being a lunatic.
Smoke what the hell are you doing?  Is this just emotional BS from the smoking conversation where Jack said all smokers who smoke close to non smokers should be put in jail for attempted murder?  Yes Jack I'm exaggerating your claims a bit here, not claiming you said that word for word.  But is this still just butthurt leftovers from that disagreement? 

15
Wow, long read to catch back up.  Timmy, just a trolling moron.  Smoke, wandering into a minefield because he is mad at Jack from a previous disagreement about smoking. 
Both absolute morons who don't understand what a model is.  Hell smoke described it like it meant model car, while trying to day I don't know what a model is, I got a good belly laugh out of that.  Timmy, just can't bring himself to admit a simple semantic incorrectness in what he said, instead he let's jack fuck him all the way into holding a cult member position.  Way back when Jack disagreed, yes petty as it was (but calculated as Timmy's butthurt button is joyful), if Timmy would have said yes there can be a model, just not one that is very accurate, and admitted that he was just paraphrasing a bit.  But no, can't have Jack disagreeing with him.  Timmy must really love you Jack.

Smoke, it was a good try. I applaud the troll game you played.  Understand though, Timmy is emotionally invested in being narcissistic.  It isn't just playfully insulting your opponent's name and being contrary.  There is an art form to Timmy, a dedication, a willingness to go full retard, never go full retard. 

16
Come on Jack where are those alleged FE scientific models YOU say exist along with all their "PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA"  Where are they Jack?

You literally just posted them


Are you serious?

Scientific dummy! Do you think this is science? if so please explain as Jack cant.

"The Flat Earth model is the primary model in Flat Earth theory, in which the Earth is a flat disk. Most arguments or statements having to do with the Flat Earth model should be referring to this model.

Work in progress"

Go ahead and good luck in finding any science in that. Good luck in finding anything that looks like a scientific model.
Hmm, hypothesis, model that hypothesis based on observations(limited as those observations may be), sounds a bit like science.   Although the challenge was there is NO FE model, another that popped up was there is no science in an FE model.  Seems to be that using observations to create a model, kinda is using science to create a model.  Now those observations are severely  limited and FE supporters refuse to test their models against reality, but they can make limited predictions byt the larger you scale it out the less predictions it can make. 
But hey, you do you. Build those strawman and burn them down, it certainly seems to make you feel better.
FE can and has presented models.  All are wrong when properly tested, but they are still models. 

17
I see Timmy has a new ally against Jack. 

Jack loves pointing out semantic and logical failures by Timmy.  Timmy can't seem to see it and continues to dig himself into increasingly illogical positions.  Timmy is getting really good at strawman arguments and Jack is getting better at being picky and petty.  Logically Jack is correct, although it's a bit pedantic.  Timmy is just a mess of narcissism and dishonesty.   Smoke, are you sure you want to back that horse?  I get it, jack pissed you off, you could devolve into Timmy or you could just sit back and enjoy the show. 

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Are all flat earthers also Genesis believers?
« on: November 07, 2022, 06:43:30 AM »
Did I post the Bible doesn’t have a statement concerning the shape of the world?
Please write clearly, what do you think is the bible's stance on the shape of the world and what is your duty here?

In the light of:

"Again, the devil took him to an exceedingly high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory." Matt:4:8

Can you explain how this could happen on a spherical world? And how do you find yourself a role accordingly?; I mean role but not troll.
What mountain?  Was it an actual mountain or something else spoken in a way to help humans understand?
What kingdoms?  The known kingdoms for those people, in that area?  Everything points to the people's outside of a small area of the spherical globe during that time were either intentionally left out or not known about by the human males who decided what went into the Bible after hundreds of years of word of mouth, and several church/state sponsored "translations".  Sure let's cherry pick that version. 
Plus, how would a racist shitstain of a Turk be an authority on anything?  Go back to the safety of the believers forums you absolute waste of oxygen.

19
Flat Earth General / Re: Antarctica - A wall of ice?
« on: October 04, 2022, 06:40:30 AM »
It certainly seems to gravitate down towards Earth.


Does it really? Look at your own globe, and tell me where water "gravitates".



Is all the water in the center? No. Is it all north? No. Is it all south? No. East? West? No. And no.



Pwrhaps this map  shows what I mean better. You can see from this that the land and sea appears randomly. There is no pull towards either the poles or the equator, just some generic toward the earth. This is basically saying "it stays in place, because magic... ummm I mean 'gravity. '" That's great and all, but that doesn't really tell us why we can't test this behavior with any natural object. We can suppose objects fall due to gravity (wrong phenomenon, but whatever) but yet cannot see a single instance of this same gravity making sure that water sticks to round objects. Except on your imaginary globe.

Meanwhile, in a flat Earth with universal down, water stays in the basin because down is below.

If gravity really was in action and  pulled objects toward the center, then if you lived in Brazil, and tossed a glass model over the equator, you'd expect since the equator is the widest part of the Earth, for it to have some kind of trouble crossing the equator. Nope, it sails across the equator just like it sails across political borders, another thing drawn in maps that doesn't actually exist. It lands on the other side having had norhing to do with any curvature and everything to do with how strong or weak the thrower is. If I toss a metal object near the magnetic North Pole of Earth, I would imagine the same couldn't be said.
You are an idiot.  None of that makes any sense at all.  Either you are intentionally being a moron or you have a complete misunderstanding of geometry in 3 dimensions.  Take time to learn things and stop with the strawman shit.  Aka "If your model was right, then this thing that would happen". 
Gravity, learn about it and stop misrepresenting it.
Geometry, I am not sure any amount of study can fix you.  You may have Aphantasia.

20
Flat Earth General / Re: Antarctica - A wall of ice?
« on: October 03, 2022, 11:41:54 AM »
Bullcrap. Secular countries are at the top of the list for euthanasia and even designing suicide rides.

Do Not Resuscitate
Literally the first question asked of me at my recent hospital stay.  Do you have a DNR?  This was a hospital with a big cross on the wall with Baptist in the name.  I'm in the South in the US too, that hospital was pretty much, not secular.

Bullcrap, bullcrap, and again I say bullcrap. DNR is a patient-advised choice. Not to do with the hospital or its religious leanings.

I myself am technically DNR, because I know that otherwise they would do extraordinary measures to keep me alive long after my natural lifespan. I believe that living things are created by God and we shouldn't either put down animals via lethal injection nor keep people alive for twenty years after they wanted to die naturally.

We shouldn't intervene to put pets down, and we shouldn't intervene to keep people alive. Both of these are playing God.

https://www.wired.com/2017/04/pricey-technology-keeping-people-alive-dont-want-live/

God is not torturing people. We are.
So, if I am dying and you could easily save me but choose not to, is it not wrong in God's eyes?  Let's expand on this, if we choose to stop feeding prisoners, I'm sure  God would be OK with that.  Oh, let's let's the suicidal teenager have a gun too. 
I'm not sure what church you go to, but mine would very much try to discourage a DNR because it is very close to suicide.

21
(but this particular one should not be directly for FE theory).
It's almost like even after years of arguing irrelevant points against our beliefs you have failed to understand any of them, leaving you to continue with strawman against strawman.
You keep using that word, strawman.  It doesn't mean what you think it does.
Explain, I know its hard for you, how Jack saying a discussion about moonlight should not be tied to FE.   

22
Flat Earth General / Re: Antarctica - A wall of ice?
« on: October 03, 2022, 09:34:08 AM »
Bullcrap. Secular countries are at the top of the list for euthanasia and even designing suicide rides.

Do Not Resuscitate
Literally the first question asked of me at my recent hospital stay.  Do you have a DNR?  This was a hospital with a big cross on the wall with Baptist in the name.  I'm in the South in the US too, that hospital was pretty much, not secular. 

23

Shadows are not the absence of light.



The shadow of this mountain on the bottom of the clouds is the absence of the suns projected light. Line of sight radiation blocked ( attenuated large in part). I didn’t say it was total darkness.

Quote
You do understand that a shadow is literally the absence of light.

Your exact words.

Yeah so?  You do understand light is radiation, and can be shielded like radiation. Has nothing to do with ”They need actual light to exist.” The mountain is creating a void, shielding the sun’s light to keep photons from reaching the bottom of the clouds. 

It’s like saying no detectable radiation when in actuality the correct term is no detectable radiation above background.


But you can shield radiation from our radiation detectors, our eyes.  It it has nothing to do with, “They need actual light to exist.”

Radiation doesn’t need other radiation to be blocked from a detector. 


Quote
A shadow is a dark area where light from a light source is blocked by an opaque object. It occupies all of the three-dimensional volume behind an object with light in front of it. The cross section of a shadow is a two-dimensional silhouette, or a reverse projection of the object blocking the light.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow
Data, just concede that you misspoke due to trying to simplify the idea.  It will make it easier.  Yes it should have been understood by all, but dishonest debate tactics are always used by people with nothing to support their positions like this over examination of whether you included that you meant direct light only.  Yes shadow's are the absence of direct light from the light source but there is still ambient light.  Ambient being reflected and scattered light, i.e. not directly LOS to the source. 

24
Flat Earth General / Re: Antarctica - A wall of ice?
« on: October 02, 2022, 07:30:36 AM »
Theset two words.
Universal:
1.Off, relating to, or affecting the entire universe.
2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration; applicable in all cases (synonym: general).
3. Done, produced, or shared by all members of the class or group under consideration.


Down:
noun

<irrelevant>

adverb

1.  From a higher to a lower place or position.
2. Toward, to, or on the ground, floor, or bottom.
<irrelevant>

Universal down, towards a center is not really universal. It's  more of a relative down. At the poles, the center is straight down. The further south from north you get, the more it's "down and to the side", at the equator, you are jumping to the side.  Below the equator at the south pole, down is up, and up is down.

But if you claim there is no universal down, then what do "down", "down and to the side", "to the side", and "up" mean in that last paragraph? If there is no universal down, then there is no "universal sideways" or "universal up", either? Why do you insist that "down" is "toward the south"?

Defining down as "toward the center of the earth" is meaningful only in the region of space where earth's gravity dominates. That is, inside, on the surface of, or near the earth. For the class of things in this region of space, i.e. everything in, on, and near the earth, which includes all humans (except for a handful for a brief time so far, and until the next manned lunar mission). This is universal according to your definitions 2. and 3 for all people on earth, which for the time being is all people.

Quote
The idea of something being universal means it is applicable the same way everywhere. Not that it constantly must adjust based on location. You can either have a down at the center of the Earth, relative to our location, or you can have universal down. Not both. And the idea of RE types using that term is absurd.

Look at your definitions 2. and 3. for "universal" again. Emphasis added in the first quote block for your convenience.

Big fluffy down is NOT irrelevant. It's how you globalists sleep at night. Think about that. Also, it wasn't MY definition. I got it from the internet.

Quote
But you said if the Earth were a sphere people in Australia would have to hang like bats.  Universal down is what that would require, and absolutely is not part of what we experience or what we say about how gravity works.  YOU claimed otherwise, now explain what universal down is and how it works.  It ISNT part of a spherical Earth at all, we never claimed it was.  YOU tried to use it as a strawman argument, now explain what causes it. 

That wasn't a strawman. Without a universal down, everyone on the equator hangs sideways around a rim, and then oh so gradually but nonetheless, they start towards hanging like bats. That's ridiculous.

Flat Earth asserts that people throughout the Earth live and work upright like decent folk, and there are inner and outer zones that are north and south of the equator. You can only get a truly universal down through this theory, and it's beautiful. It means if I dig straight down, rather than going to China, I either burn up to cinders, or I fall through into space.
As I said, WE do not use universal down.  I.e. there is a downwards pull to the universe, or a up and down for the universe as a whole.  WE demonstrate there is an acceleration due to gravity which makes down a local phenomenon, or towards the center of the mass.  There would be no sideways people or upside-down people.  You clearly tried to use it saying that people would be hanging upside-down in Australia due to there position on the Earth.  It was exactly a STRAWMAN argument. 
Now, due you believe there is there a universal down?  If so, what causes it?  If not, admit and apologize for the strawman argument.  I'm not saying concede your FE idiocy, I'm saying concede that there would be no upside-down people hanging from the globe.

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« on: October 02, 2022, 02:40:05 AM »
NOT wrong! ;)
YES,  WRONG.  Very very very wrong.

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Size of the sun
« on: October 02, 2022, 02:39:25 AM »
Wrong again...Try reading up on science...Maybe start with the First Law of Thermodynamics...

The reason it's actually colder is because, as you go up in the atmosphere, the Earth's atmosphere feels less pressure the higher up you go. So as the gas in the atmosphere rises it feels less pressure, which makes it expand. When the gas expands it does some work. And and if it's doing work, it must be losing some energy; and if it loses energy, its temperature must drop because we define temperature as the average energy of the particles. Therefore, if the energy of the particles is lower, the temperature must be lower.

It's colder because there's less and less AIR when higher above Earth, of course, but why would there be ANY air above Earth, if 'gravity' is 'pulling it all down' to Earth's surface? It should pull ALL of the air down to the surface, not just SOME of it, that makes no sense at all either.

Not only that, but if 'gravity' WAS pulling down the air, from above, we'd have just as much air on top of Mt. Everest as we do on the ground below, so again, it makes no sense at all.

All the air is above Earth's surface, yet far less air is present at higher points ON the surface, than at sea level, right?

Air is based on levels of pressure, or gradients, from SEA level, having the most air, and less air, when at higher ELEVATIONS, or altitudes, within air.

Your made up force has to 'pull down' air, to Earth's surface, at equal levels, because you claim it HOLDS us down to Earth, PULLS US from above Earth, to ANY point on the surface, equally.

We only can jump higher, throw a ball further, because there is LESS AIR at higher elevations, but if 'gravity' existed, it would 'pull down air' to the ground, no matter what elevation on the ground, at the SAME level, not lesser at higher elevation.

The only change, is less air at higher elevations, which allows us to jump higher, throw a ball further up in air, because of less resistance FROM AIR.

When they made up 'gravity', it was NEVER going to hold up to scrutiny, there's countless contradictions in it, like this one here, which 'pulls down' more air to sea level, than anywhere above sea level, which is complete nonsense, as it would apply equal force to the ENTIRE surface, no matter WHAT elevation it is. That alone proves it doesn't exist, among many others beyond.
Why, don't just claim foolish things, explain why. 
I claim you are an insane person that only gets internet time on the weekends at the "home".  I'm going to use your tactics and not explain why, but anyone disagreeing with me is spouting nonsense.  See how this works, nut job?

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Do Clouds Show Evidence of Spherical Earth?
« on: October 02, 2022, 02:36:16 AM »
Right, clouds are water vapor, even when they are dark storm clouds, where everything on Earth looks dark, looks as if it were NIGHT-TIME, or at DUSK, and how can clouds darken out the Earth when the Sun is above them, does make sense, in my argument.

The easiest way to understand this, is if you extend the distance of the Sun, after your last diagram, and you'll see what happens, eventually.
Yes, storm clouds will block more of the sun than regular clouds.  Due to their water content.  It still doesn't quite get as dark as night now does it?  Plus, the picture of the clouds you complained about were not, in fact, dark storm clouds now was it.  You are getting worse at this.

28
They use the term 'sky', not 'air', when they claim that it is 'colored' in blue, which sounds better than saying the 'AIR' is colored blue, because we all know it is clear, or certainly NOT blue, anywhere we've seen it.

At any altitude we've gone up, the air is not blue, in the slightest.

Yet you still believe their claim that the SKY itself is colored blue, after seeing nothing but clear skies, at all altitudes below it, DOWN to the Earth. Air is always clear, the Sun doesn't make it look blue, nor does it ever appear to be blue, anywhere at all, because it is NOT our skies, our air, that is blue in color, it is the WATER of the Firmament above Earth, which holds the waters above Earth, which is colored blue, same as waters ON the Earth, are colored blue, that's the reason it is blue we see above us, in daylight.
Take any amount of water and block it from the blue sky and guess what, it's pretty much clear, not blue, edit, yes as Data said very deep water will have a turquois color, again not sky blue.  Raise altitude enough and the sky above you will gradually change from blue to black. 

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Do Clouds Show Evidence of Spherical Earth?
« on: October 01, 2022, 11:32:43 PM »
Let's look at your last 3 diagrams, of the flat Earth...

The Sun is shown in 3 positions, moving away from a cloud, and shows how the angle of sunlight lowers with further distance away, right?

What is NOT shown, are the angles of sunlight from MORE distance away, like it suddenly STOPPED moving further away or something!

Why would you/he show the FIRST part of it, but not the REST of it? 

Because it would show the Sun goes lower and lower, to the point of sunlight hitting the BOTTOM of the cloud, right? Oh, maybe you DON'T know that part yet, unless you see it on a VALID, ACCURATE diagram, showing the ENTIRE event, not just the part that helps your fairy tale!

Have you ever noticed that when clouds are lit from below, the Sun still lights up the whole sky above us, above those clouds? If the Sun was physically LOWER than the clouds, going down a ball Earth 'curve', which you believe 'proves' is why sunlight is hitting the clouds from below, then the clouds would 'block' out all sunlight ABOVE these clouds too. But we obviously can see it as before, still in sunlight, If the entire sky is covered with clouds, the sky above them, is still in sunlight, which proves, the Sun is NOT below the clouds, over a ball Earth. The sky would be dark, from clouds blocking out all sunlight, as the Sun would be dipping down over a ball Earth!

There's your answer.
Clouds are water vapor.  When it's completely overcast is it pitch dark?  Wtf are you smoking.

30
Flat Earth General / Re: Antarctica - A wall of ice?
« on: October 01, 2022, 03:25:47 PM »
don't get him started on parabolas...

or in this case - upside down parabolas.



he already was confused about upside down people in austaralia
Yeah, never did answer the universal down question.

Here's the answer. There can be no universal down in a round Earth. Down would be toward the center, meaning down is sideways at the equator. This is absurd.

There can only be a universal down if the entire Earth is sunny-side up, like it is in any proper flat Earth.

Quote
Coal mining is LITERALLY strip mining, and it does so using thousands of times more area than lithium mines.

No no, coal mining gives you black lung. So it's better for the environment.
But you said if the Earth were a sphere people in Australia would have to hang like bats.  Universal down is what that would require, and absolutely is not part of what we experience or what we say about how gravity works.  YOU claimed otherwise, now explain what universal down is and how it works.  It ISNT part of a spherical Earth at all, we never claimed it was.  YOU tried to use it as a strawman argument, now explain what causes it. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 97