A glass dome in the sky? Really?

  • 221 Replies
  • 61433 Views
*

JimmyTheCrab

  • 10340
  • +0/-5
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #180 on: July 11, 2014, 04:01:36 AM »
@scepti, in your "model" why do we have sunsets?  Can you draw a diagram to explain.

Once you have done that you can explain why we have seasons.
I'll draw a diagram later.
No, you won't.  You can't.

Quote
The sunsets are when the reflected light (sun) moves over the dome, away from your view through the thick atmosphere.
How is the sun  moving?  Why do the periods of light and dark change over the year, apart from for people on the equator?

Quote
As for seasons. It's because the super glowing carbon at the centre loses and gains energy which drops and raises it.
This causes changes in the waves through the crystal prisms causing the light to shift angles of reflection.
lol - nice 5th rate sci-fi.  You aren't really trying now are you?  Sounds like a dream you had after eating too much cheese.


How does this explain how different parts of the earth have different seasons at the same time?  Why is it winter in the UK when it is summer in Australia?
I think it's pointless wasting my time with you.
This whole forum is pointless, get over it.  It's a time wasting diversion, that is all.  Grow some balls and play the game properly.

Quote
Just stick to your globe and be done with it. You don't need answers and you are certainly not going to extertain any thoughts no matter what. If it goes against your indoctrination it's dismissed, simple as that, so why are you here?
This is your usual avoidance when backed into a corner.  You can't draw a diagram of your "model", you can't explain cycles of day light and you can't explain seasons.

Your hypothesis is completely broken, and you know it, as you know it all comes from your imagination.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #181 on: July 11, 2014, 04:07:00 AM »
@scepti, in your "model" why do we have sunsets?  Can you draw a diagram to explain.

Once you have done that you can explain why we have seasons.
I'll draw a diagram later.
No, you won't.  You can't.

Quote
The sunsets are when the reflected light (sun) moves over the dome, away from your view through the thick atmosphere.
How is the sun  moving?  Why do the periods of light and dark change over the year, apart from for people on the equator?

Quote
As for seasons. It's because the super glowing carbon at the centre loses and gains energy which drops and raises it.
This causes changes in the waves through the crystal prisms causing the light to shift angles of reflection.
lol - nice 5th rate sci-fi.  You aren't really trying now are you?  Sounds like a dream you had after eating too much cheese.


How does this explain how different parts of the earth have different seasons at the same time?  Why is it winter in the UK when it is summer in Australia?
I think it's pointless wasting my time with you.
This whole forum is pointless, get over it.  It's a time wasting diversion, that is all.  Grow some balls and play the game properly.

Quote
Just stick to your globe and be done with it. You don't need answers and you are certainly not going to extertain any thoughts no matter what. If it goes against your indoctrination it's dismissed, simple as that, so why are you here?
This is your usual avoidance when backed into a corner.  You can't draw a diagram of your "model", you can't explain cycles of day light and you can't explain seasons.

Your hypothesis is completely broken, and you know it, as you know it all comes from your imagination.
Well just go with that Jimbob and be happy about it.

*

JimmyTheCrab

  • 10340
  • +0/-5
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #182 on: July 11, 2014, 04:08:36 AM »
So much for "kicking global arse"   ::)
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #183 on: July 11, 2014, 04:14:50 AM »
So much for "kicking global arse"   ::)
That's already been done since this forum started but let's not dwell on tit for tat's.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #184 on: July 11, 2014, 05:26:22 AM »
So you admit darkness comes from lack of light and not from wave combinations? 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
  • +0/-0
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #185 on: July 11, 2014, 05:41:19 AM »

I can't help but notice that any thread that sceptimatic gets involved with immediately turns into an intellectual, philosophical and deductive cesspool of his ludicrous pseudo-scientific drivel.  Page after page of unadulterated bullshit.

Seriously guys... it's a total waste of time even trying to engage sceptimatic in any meaningful scientific debate.  He obviously has very little understanding of either geophysics or astrophysics, let alone mechanics, optical theory, magnetism and electromagnetism, aeronautics, propagation of light, Newtonian physics, non-Euclidean geometry... and the list goes on.

—Save the wear and tear on your retinas guys, and consign his absurd ramblings to the circular file where they belong.

 

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #186 on: July 11, 2014, 09:32:25 AM »
So you admit darkness comes from lack of light and not from wave combinations?
When you grasp what I'm talking about, then make assumptions, not until.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #187 on: July 11, 2014, 09:37:20 AM »

I can't help but notice that any thread that sceptimatic gets involved with immediately turns into an intellectual, philosophical and deductive cesspool of his ludicrous pseudo-scientific drivel.  Page after page of unadulterated bullshit.

Seriously guys... it's a total waste of time even trying to engage sceptimatic in any meaningful scientific debate.  He obviously has very little understanding of either geophysics or astrophysics, let alone mechanics, optical theory, magnetism and electromagnetism, aeronautics, propagation of light, Newtonian physics, non-Euclidean geometry... and the list goes on.

—Save the wear and tear on your retinas guys, and consign his absurd ramblings to the circular file where they belong.
I'd be more than content if you never looked at another post made by me and that goes for your like-minded buddies.
Let's see if you can not refer to me for 1 month, at all. Not even to mention anything I say in any form, whatsoever. Let's see how you do.
If you manage the month, I'll be impressed and if you manage that, I think you can manage it for life.

No need to reply to this, just take it onboard and follow your own thoughts.
Responding to anything I say means you are worried that people will be thinking for themselves through what I say. By not responding, I will assume that you are just an ordinary person, simply bored and participating on a forum. Cheers.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • +0/-0
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #188 on: July 11, 2014, 09:52:04 AM »
Well, if there is no way of even getting you to think about what you do by sticking to the subject(like the first paragraph of my last post - how comes you think the "super vacuum" even exists, if you have never encountered it in any way, or even read something clearly defining its properties with some evidence?), what can a man do but laugh at how stubborn you are? I give you examples how your ideas are widely inconsistent with themselves, hoping you would go something like "Hmm... It indeed seems like it is either this or that... But which one?". You scream back how indoctrinated I am. Whatever, even if the Earth was flat, some of your claims contradict each other. It is like saying that some place does not exist, followed by saying that you are already right there.
Ok, I'll make a deal with you. I'll admit that I can't produce evidence for most of what I say and any evidence I did produce like the one I produced on the ice lake to prove a flat Earth will be classed as no evidence, So here's the deal.

Since I can't directly prove my stuff and can only hypothesise, how about you directly proving that you are right and I am wrong.
Let's start with gravity. All I want you to do is to tell me what gravity is and how the force is provable.
I don't want to hear stuff like, "well things fall." You know, stuff like that. I want direct proof.
So tell me what gravity IS, first of all.
Once you do this, you can then tell me about warped space time and how it's proved. Higgs boson - Dark matter - Black holes- fabric of space - big bang - special relativity - general relativity and E=MC2.

It's only fair I ask for proof of these as it's the only way I can evaluate my own thoughts and see if they are wrong.

Over to you. One thing at a time, so start with. What is gravity?

Scepti, it's one thing to have a hypothesis and develop that into a theory based on little to no evidence. In fact, you could argue that's what string theory does. The big difference is that your ideas aren't even internally consistent. When two parts of your theory contradict each other, that's generally considered a problem. If you want to rant about me being "indoctrinated" now for a while be my guest. Being indoctrinated with basic logic is something I can live with.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #189 on: July 11, 2014, 10:49:16 AM »
Scepti, it's one thing to have a hypothesis and develop that into a theory based on little to no evidence. In fact, you could argue that's what string theory does. The big difference is that your ideas aren't even internally consistent. When two parts of your theory contradict each other, that's generally considered a problem. If you want to rant about me being "indoctrinated" now for a while be my guest. Being indoctrinated with basic logic is something I can live with.
First of all, we are all indoctrinated in some form. It's hard to completely wipe it all from our minds. It's a constant fight. It's the reason why I don't hold it against genuine people who believe in the rotating globe model.
I've also stated time and time again that my model is not complete by a long shot and requires a lot of addition and fine tuning.
I do this by firstly eliminating the stuff that I consider to be lies or pseudo science - the very science that people stick rigidly to yet don't actually know why or how it really works. I'm referring to the stuff like string theory and all the other stuff I've mentioned.

I do not have any problem with general science as a whole and in-fact I am impressed with mans ability to harness the elements and produce wonders for which we all benefit in terms of comfort and technological advancement.

If I could sit down in front of you and ask you how you know about the stuff I argue against, your only answer is indoctrination by verbal or text or the vision of pictures made available to you, whether still or moving.
Basically you are doing exactly what I am doing and yet you are claiming credit for knowing something that is handed to you on a plate and believe that it puts you on a higher pedestal when up against my thoughts.

This is by no means a dig at you or any other genuine person. It's an observation in life that I see every day, which goes for you and everyone else on the whole.

Most arguments aimed back at me are simply to negate what I try to simplistically put forward, because the science world has taught people to use the complicated way to explain things. Because of this, it's widely accepted to be truth whilst anyone else who has ideas and alternates, are immediately cast off as nuts. I understand that, because it's easier to sell a lie to the masses by saturation than it is for the few to sell them the potential truth or alternate thought to that lie. The lie becomes their truth.
The more complicated the lie, the easier it is for the intelligent to accept, because intelligent people do not want to appear to be the ones not to understand the lie, so they learn the lie and regurgiate that lie. They do this because their brain is trained on that lie, to the point of never accepting any rational explanation for the complicated lies they swallowed unconditionally.

I once went to a show where a hypnotist gathered 10 people from the audience. I was one who volunteered because I was curious to see if I could be made to do stuff against my will and be controlled.
The hypnotist walked along the line of us saying things. Up and down the line he went, sort of saying this and that, which I can't recall the words. He then asked us all to close our eyes and concentrate.
I followed all of what he said, like everyone else.
He walked back along and touched me and told me to go back to my seat, as well as another 3 others. I took that to mean I was too headstrong or whatever, like the others that sat down.

Anyway, the other 6 were made to do all kinds of silly things. Not all on the stage, only some. The rest were told to go and sit back down - but unbeknown to us, he had planted the seed into their heads that they were school kids.

I only found out this when I got talking to one man in the interval who was mentioning being late for school and he can't find his satchel. I thought he was taking the piss but clearly he wasn't, as the others were all displaying the same traits.
The ones on the stage were made to act like babies or do silly things. It was funny and odd at the same time.

What I'm getting at here is... that may have been a hypnotic show but the very same stuff that people buy into can also become hypnotic in terms of a belief system. People can literally be made to believe anything. It's all about the genius of manipulation, whether that's by tutored indoctrination or by study of it with the books, TV, etc.

I was guilty of believing almost everything, especially told by people who I admired and trusted or respected. I spent a lot of years believing everything about space and gravity, etc, etc, etc. I never understood it enough to even bother to argue it. It just was and that was that.
It was like being told as a kid that Ling Jang was a mad man and would chase you with a big knife if you dared walk down the alley past his home. You would dare each other to do so, crapping yourself when it was your turn, all because your mind was filled with re-enactments of him catching and chopping up someone, even to the point of dreaming about it and waking up in a sweat.

Later on in years, you mention it to people and they say, "who?... Ling Jang?...he's harmless. He looks after his mother - and kids used to tease him until he caught one and gave him a good telling off. The problem was, he had a scary look - and the fuel for the fire was fed, so he became a mad man that all kids knew. Even older people that didn't know him personally believed he was nuts...yet he was normal.

That doesn't equate to actualy science does it? It depends on how you view it, because it does equate to brainwashing the mind by setting a tone by one or a few people that gain the minds of the masses over time. Just like a lot of scientific stories that are told as truths and yet cannot be physically verified. Like what we are told space is.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • +0/-0
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #190 on: July 11, 2014, 11:17:24 AM »
Scepti, it's one thing to have a hypothesis and develop that into a theory based on little to no evidence. In fact, you could argue that's what string theory does. The big difference is that your ideas aren't even internally consistent. When two parts of your theory contradict each other, that's generally considered a problem. If you want to rant about me being "indoctrinated" now for a while be my guest. Being indoctrinated with basic logic is something I can live with.
First of all, we are all indoctrinated in some form. It's hard to completely wipe it all from our minds. It's a constant fight. It's the reason why I don't hold it against genuine people who believe in the rotating globe model.
I've also stated time and time again that my model is not complete by a long shot and requires a lot of addition and fine tuning.
I do this by firstly eliminating the stuff that I consider to be lies or pseudo science - the very science that people stick rigidly to yet don't actually know why or how it really works. I'm referring to the stuff like string theory and all the other stuff I've mentioned.

Why don't you start with eliminating the stuff which is blatantly self-contradictory and illogical first?

Quote
I do not have any problem with general science as a whole and in-fact I am impressed with mans ability to harness the elements and produce wonders for which we all benefit in terms of comfort and technological advancement.

Do you not realize that all this "general science" is based on laws and theories that completely undermine things like denpressure and the ice dome?

Quote
If I could sit down in front of you and ask you how you know about the stuff I argue against, your only answer is indoctrination by verbal or text or the vision of pictures made available to you, whether still or moving.
Basically you are doing exactly what I am doing and yet you are claiming credit for knowing something that is handed to you on a plate and believe that it puts you on a higher pedestal when up against my thoughts.

The whole reason I argue this "stuff", is because I have learned about some of it in detail, and I've seen how the theories work, how they are derived, and how they follow from logic and mathematics applied to empirical facts. That's the beauty of science, that it isn't just a collection of facts that you are forced to regurgitate. Granted, for a higher education there is a lot of stuff you need to memorize. But that's only because to work it all out yourself from first principles to where we are today took thousands of years. Even when you know the right path, it still takes years because it's so complex. [/quote]

Quote
<other various Sceptified ranting>

The education system may have its faults, but you get out what you put in. It's not hypnosis, it's rarely true indoctrination (I'll admit certain private schools, i.e. religious ones, definitely have an agenda), and it's going to continue to go through times of improvement and times where it fails. However, one thing you can be sure of is that telling kids to just go out and make their own theory is not going to produce any significant number of doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. that are going to contribute to the innovation that's brought you the standard of living you enjoy today.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #191 on: July 11, 2014, 11:22:57 AM »
Shmeggley: You have totally missed the whole point of my post. Take your time and read it thoroughly then absorb it, then you might grasp what I'm saying.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #192 on: July 11, 2014, 11:35:38 AM »
schmeggley understands your post more than you do.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • +0/-0
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #193 on: July 11, 2014, 11:45:31 AM »
Shmeggley: You have totally missed the whole point of my post. Take your time and read it thoroughly then absorb it, then you might grasp what I'm saying.

Nothing in that post explains how your ideas, which don't even agree with each other, much less agree with empirical evidence, can possibly form some kind of workable theory of how nature works.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

JimmyTheCrab

  • 10340
  • +0/-5
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #194 on: July 11, 2014, 01:26:53 PM »
First of all, we are all indoctrinated in some form...blah....blah...blah...
You seem to have a lot of time for page after page of inane gibber jabber, but strangely can't spare the 5 minutes it would take to make a diagram of how sunsets would work with your ice dome thing.

Why is that?
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
  • +0/-0
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #195 on: July 12, 2014, 03:56:02 AM »

Responding to anything I say means you are worried that people will be thinking for themselves through what I say. By not responding, I will assume that you are just an ordinary person, simply bored and participating on a forum. Cheers.

Oh dear... this is one of the most illogical responses I've seen from you sceptimatic.  And there's been plenty to choose from.   ;D

Unfortunately, there'll inevitably be a tiny percentage of the population who'll momentarily consider that your totally ludicrous opinions on the sciences as actually containing some kernel of truth.  Although, in the majority of cases, even those folks will come to understand that you have absolutely no idea of what you're rambling on about.  "Denpressure" anyone LOL?

I do agree that many people will be "thinking for themselves" when they read your drivel, and that's precisely why they'll reject your comments as coming from waaay out of left field.  Sorry, but the truth can hurt.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #196 on: July 12, 2014, 05:39:52 AM »
First of all, we are all indoctrinated in some form...blah....blah...blah...
You seem to have a lot of time for page after page of inane gibber jabber, but strangely can't spare the 5 minutes it would take to make a diagram of how sunsets would work with your ice dome thing.

Why is that?
I was told I can't do one and that it would be pointless me trying, so I decided not to do one, as it would be a waste of time.
I'll do them for those that are interested. You and the other indocs do not fit that category.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #197 on: July 12, 2014, 05:42:45 AM »

Responding to anything I say means you are worried that people will be thinking for themselves through what I say. By not responding, I will assume that you are just an ordinary person, simply bored and participating on a forum. Cheers.

Oh dear... this is one of the most illogical responses I've seen from you sceptimatic.  And there's been plenty to choose from.   ;D

Unfortunately, there'll inevitably be a tiny percentage of the population who'll momentarily consider that your totally ludicrous opinions on the sciences as actually containing some kernel of truth.  Although, in the majority of cases, even those folks will come to understand that you have absolutely no idea of what you're rambling on about.  "Denpressure" anyone LOL?

I do agree that many people will be "thinking for themselves" when they read your drivel, and that's precisely why they'll reject your comments as coming from waaay out of left field.  Sorry, but the truth can hurt.
The truth is actually refreshing. It does not hurt. The biggest obstacle is being told the truth...something that you and your cronies are incapable of providing.
I'm 8 years old with inane drivel, so why are you responding to me when you made it clear that you skip over all my posts. You make yourself look rather silly, Geoffrey.

?

Goth

  • 220
  • +0/-0
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #198 on: July 12, 2014, 06:52:15 AM »

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
  • +0/-0
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #199 on: July 12, 2014, 08:21:41 AM »
...something that you and your cronies are incapable of providing.

Uh... you do understand that my "cronies" number 6 million scientists, and 7 billion people across the planet don't you?

Than again maybe not.   

And your cronies?  Hmmm... 400 maybe?   ;D

—And how can it be that although you claim that you've got me on your IGNORE list, you inevitably respond to every comment I make?  Can't resist learning something of the real world from someone who knows?

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
  • +0/-0
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #200 on: July 12, 2014, 08:29:18 AM »


Apparently Goth now wants to ban input from one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world.

I wonder why?  A flood of scientific evidence that totally destroys his flat earth hypothesis in one fell swoop maybe?

Or just afraid of a little bit of debating that cuts too close to the bone for his liking?

—And would you care to let us know Goth just how many flat earthers reside in Australia?  Half a dozen?  Twenty maybe?  We're far too scientifically well-educated to fall for the flat earth hypothesis mate.  We can actually think for ourselves.


*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #201 on: July 12, 2014, 10:26:29 AM »
...something that you and your cronies are incapable of providing.

Uh... you do understand that my "cronies" number 6 million scientists, and 7 billion people across the planet don't you?

Than again maybe not.   

And your cronies?  Hmmm... 400 maybe?   ;D

—And how can it be that although you claim that you've got me on your IGNORE list, you inevitably respond to every comment I make?  Can't resist learning something of the real world from someone who knows?

Once again, ausGeoff tries to impress everyone with an argumentum ad numerum/ ad populum/ ab auctoritate plea.  How sad.  Keep working on your debate skill, mate.  You will get there some day. 

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #202 on: July 12, 2014, 10:35:11 AM »
...something that you and your cronies are incapable of providing.

Uh... you do understand that my "cronies" number 6 million scientists, and 7 billion people across the planet don't you?

Than again maybe not.   

And your cronies?  Hmmm... 400 maybe?   ;D

—And how can it be that although you claim that you've got me on your IGNORE list, you inevitably respond to every comment I make?  Can't resist learning something of the real world from someone who knows?

Once again, ausGeoff tries to impress everyone with an argumentum ad numerum/ ad populum/ ab auctoritate plea.  How sad.  Keep working on your debate skill, mate.  You will get there some day.

It does irritate me too but millions of scientists reaching similar results independently from each is nothing to scoff at. I do wish he would tone down on asking for citations and using ad populum tactics though. The point of fet is that we are being lied to so I don't find it to be effective to say stuff like that. If the earth actually is flat then there would be a conspiracy and it would be difficult to find citations and people who know "the truth". There are plenty of good ways to embarrass fet without resorting to common logical fallacies.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #203 on: July 12, 2014, 10:49:10 AM »
...something that you and your cronies are incapable of providing.

Uh... you do understand that my "cronies" number 6 million scientists, and 7 billion people across the planet don't you?

Than again maybe not.   

And your cronies?  Hmmm... 400 maybe?   ;D

—And how can it be that although you claim that you've got me on your IGNORE list, you inevitably respond to every comment I make?  Can't resist learning something of the real world from someone who knows?

Once again, ausGeoff tries to impress everyone with an argumentum ad numerum/ ad populum/ ab auctoritate plea.  How sad.  Keep working on your debate skill, mate.  You will get there some day.

It does irritate me too but millions of scientists reaching similar results independently from each is nothing to scoff at. I do wish he would tone down on asking for citations and using ad populum tactics though. The point of fet is that we are being lied to so I don't find it to be effective to say stuff like that. If the earth actually is flat then there would be a conspiracy and it would be difficult to find citations and people who know "the truth". There are plenty of good ways to embarrass fet without resorting to common logical fallacies.

Well said.  Thank you.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
  • +0/-0
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #204 on: July 13, 2014, 06:01:38 AM »
...something that you and your cronies are incapable of providing.

Uh... you do understand that my "cronies" number 6 million scientists, and 7 billion people across the planet don't you?

Than again maybe not.   

And your cronies?  Hmmm... 400 maybe?   ;D


Once again, ausGeoff tries to impress everyone with an argumentum ad numerum/ ad populum/ ab auctoritate plea.  How sad.  Keep working on your debate skill, mate.  You will get there some day.

Once again, jroa tries to deflect the significance of the numbers I quote with fancy Latin phrases LOL.  You really need to be addressing why exactly those numbers are so divergent as far as the acceptance of unevidenced flat earth hypotheses and accredited round earth science.

Are you seriously claiming that a mere 400 individuals spread across the entire planet are the only people who know the "real" shape of earth?  And at the same time you can't even name half a dozen academically-accredited scientists who believe the earth is flat?

Your argument about an appeal to numbers and/or authority simply don't apply to the evidence at hand jroa;  you're struggling with the classic straw man as your defence.  Apparently, in a court of law if you were being tried for a crime, you'd use the defence of argumentum ad numerum to claim the jury's decision of guilty was inappropriate, and call for a retrial?  See how silly your argument becomes—even with a dozen people versus one person.

If, at some hypothetical level, there were 2 billion flat earthers versus 5 billion round earthers, your claim of an appeal to the numbers may well have some validity.  Otherwise, forget it.  Sorry.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #205 on: July 13, 2014, 08:05:57 AM »
I remember watching a series of who wants to be a millionaire. I remember the person asked the audience for the answer. I think, about 70% gave him the same answer, so naturally he went with that. His answer was wrong.

?

inquisitive

  • 5108
  • +0/-0
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #206 on: July 13, 2014, 08:24:14 AM »
I remember watching a series of who wants to be a millionaire. I remember the person asked the audience for the answer. I think, about 70% gave him the same answer, so naturally he went with that. His answer was wrong.
Your point is?

ps. I see discussion and evidence of how things we use everyday work has ended with no fe answers.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #207 on: July 13, 2014, 08:53:34 AM »
I remember watching a series of who wants to be a millionaire. I remember the person asked the audience for the answer. I think, about 70% gave him the same answer, so naturally he went with that. His answer was wrong.
Your point is?

ps. I see discussion and evidence of how things we use everyday work has ended with no fe answers.
Are you seriously saying you can't understand the point I'm making?
Let's clarify it.
What I'm saying is, 70% of people, at least can believe they know the answer to something and yet they can all be wrong.
Think of the percentage that could be wrong about other stuff that they believed they knew the answer to.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • +0/-0
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #208 on: July 13, 2014, 09:03:13 AM »
...something that you and your cronies are incapable of providing.

Uh... you do understand that my "cronies" number 6 million scientists, and 7 billion people across the planet don't you?

Than again maybe not.   

And your cronies?  Hmmm... 400 maybe?   ;D

—And how can it be that although you claim that you've got me on your IGNORE list, you inevitably respond to every comment I make?  Can't resist learning something of the real world from someone who knows?

Once again, ausGeoff tries to impress everyone with an argumentum ad numerum/ ad populum/ ab auctoritate plea.  How sad.  Keep working on your debate skill, mate.  You will get there some day.

When you're citing an authority that actually does have knowledge in a relevant area, it's not an appeal to authority fallacy. Maybe not all 6 million scientists study the Earth's shape or have relevant knowledge in that area, but there is a significant number who do. Qualifications do matter. And there appears to be a dearth of Flat Earth "Theorists" who actually have any.

That being said, just pointing at numbers alone doesn't make a very good argument. But it would be dishonest of anyone here to claim that this is the only argument ausGeoff  has made.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2014, 09:06:35 AM by Shmeggley »
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

inquisitive

  • 5108
  • +0/-0
Re: A glass dome in the sky? Really?
« Reply #209 on: July 13, 2014, 11:07:28 AM »
I remember watching a series of who wants to be a millionaire. I remember the person asked the audience for the answer. I think, about 70% gave him the same answer, so naturally he went with that. His answer was wrong.
Your point is?

ps. I see discussion and evidence of how things we use everyday work has ended with no fe answers.
Are you seriously saying you can't understand the point I'm making?
Let's clarify it.
What I'm saying is, 70% of people, at least can believe they know the answer to something and yet they can all be wrong.
Think of the percentage that could be wrong about other stuff that they believed they knew the answer to.
And, so, that does make you right.