A glass dome in the sky is a dumb idea and most people should and do know better

That's why wherever the sun is, the sky is melting.  The hydrogen particles create their own heat with low pressure, as seen in the video when it boils.  It will return to a solid when it reaches it's lowest possible pressure up there.  Actually, here's the definition of boiling, just for clarification:
Boiling is the rapid vaporization of a liquid, which occurs when a liquid is heated to its boiling point, the temperature at which the vapor pressure of the liquid is equal to the pressure exerted on the liquid by the surrounding environmental pressure.

Liquids boil at lower temperatures when the pressure acting on them is lower. Water boils before 100 degrees C where I live. The liquids don't create their own heat. Please note this. 

Maybe I can job your memory.  You asked for a single name of a FE scientist.  I provided 3 names.  You then began to dismiss them with no evidence, and then raised the stakes to 6 names.  I then backed out because it was a waste of time.  Sound familiar?

To be honest, whilst I do remember the discussion in general terms, I certainly can't recall those three names.  Can you please jog my memory?

At any rate, why is it that you can only name a mere three out of a potential pool of 6 million scientists globally?

This is a LIST of the top 500 American scientists (some deceased).  None of these people believe(d) in any sort of flat earth model.  Can you post a listing of 500 scientists who believe in the flat earth model?

No.  Of course you can't.  Why?  Because there aren't any.  QED.

I am not going to bother listing them again.  I will give you a clue, though.  One was the head of the science department at the Ontario museum of science, one was an esteemed professor of philosophy at a major university, and one was a researcher.  Let's see how you deny all of these facts this time. 

I am not going to bother listing them again.  I will give you a clue, though.  One was the head of the science department at the Ontario museum of science, one was an esteemed professor of philosophy at a major university, and one was a researcher.  Let's see how you deny all of these facts this time.

What do you mean by you're "not going to bother" posting their names?  It would've taken less time than posting your refusal to do so LOL.

I think I've called your bluff.  Prove me wrong if you can.

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 06:03:49 PM

I am not going to bother listing them again.  I will give you a clue, though.  One was the head of the science department at the Ontario museum of science, one was an esteemed professor of philosophy at a major university, and one was a researcher.  Let's see how you deny all of these facts this time.

What do you mean by you're "not going to bother" posting their names?  It would've taken less time than posting your refusal to do so LOL.

I think I've called your bluff.  Prove me wrong if you can.

I have listed names over and over for you.  You brush off the names, and then ask for more.  I am done with that.

I am not going to bother listing them again.  I will give you a clue, though.  One was the head of the science department at the Ontario museum of science, one was an esteemed professor of philosophy at a major university, and one was a researcher.  Let's see how you deny all of these facts this time.

What is the Ontario museum of science, I live in Ontario and have never heard of this and a google search revealed no such place.  Why would a science museum have a subdivision of department of science?  I am going looking for your post where you put his name up, but on its face this sounds fishy.  Also a professor of philosophy is not a scientist.  They could be a creationist for all we know.

EDIT: I found this post which I assume you were just referring to.  So you  meant the Ontario Science Centre, fair enough, but you have never mentioned his name.  We basically have no way of corroborating this, and are being asked to take this at your word.  I for one, cannot accept this.  If you could provide the name, at least we could try and see if there is any validity to this.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 18, 2014, 07:50:22 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 18, 2014, 07:45:51 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 18, 2014, 07:41:59 AM

Quote from: macrohard on July 17, 2014, 04:30:11 PM

The difference is that FE, unlike religion, can be disproved.

With the right technology you can prove the shape of the earth.  You can never prove the non-existence of God.

If the Global Earth model is proved beyond any doubt, then why are any of you global Earthers here?
Why are any of you even arguing against a flat or whatever alternate Earth shape? It makes no sense for any of you to argue.
Of course, you can say, " I'm just here for the fun of it" or " I'm just here to laugh at how stupid you all are." That's not the truth though, is it?

So why are you here?
The reality is, you're interested in the alternative theories. They may not make much sense to you, yet...but it's peaked your interest, as it has with many.
You can tell me that you fully believe your model...but deep down, you are questioning it, even if it's minor at the moment.

No person who believes they are intelligent and scientific minded are ever going to admit they could be wrong and maybe they've been fooled.

Because some people like to argue that the earth is round to people who wrongly believe it to be flat, proves it isn't round?

We've told you why we are here. We just enjoy it.

I have no doubt you enjoy it. I'm saying that regardless of what gets said ..most people are questioning their beliefs in some way, shape of form and as part of their enjoyment of the site, they are using their thoughts and sitting there thinking, " well maybe."
I know you are doing this. You may deny it but I  believe  that some doubt has been placed into your mind about your overall model.

Nah scepti. The only thing I have doubts about are which FE'rs are trolls and which one's really believe what they say they do.

To Scepti.:

I also have doubts about which FE's are actors who are playing the parts of FE's and come up with those weird ideas such as the ice dome but really don't believe in such things. That is also the main reason I come to this website. Just to see what the next weird idea the FE's are going to come up with. I tried a thread on a simple fact of evidence once but the FE replies got so stupid it was funny. So I gave up on that. So the main reason now is simply for the entertainment value. I suppose it is something like watching an old "The Three Stooges" movie.....But occasionally they did make some sense of a sort, which is more than you can say for the FE's. LOL.

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 06:03:49 PM

I am not going to bother listing them again.  I will give you a clue, though.  One was the head of the science department at the Ontario museum of science, one was an esteemed professor of philosophy at a major university, and one was a researcher.  Let's see how you deny all of these facts this time.

What is the Ontario museum of science, I live in Ontario and have never heard of this and a google search revealed no such place.  Why would a science museum have a subdivision of department of science?  I am going looking for your post where you put his name up, but on its face this sounds fishy.  Also a professor of philosophy is not a scientist.  They could be a creationist for all we know.

EDIT: I found this post which I assume you were just referring to.  So you  meant the Ontario Science Centre, fair enough, but you have never mentioned his name.  We basically have no way of corroborating this, and are being asked to take this at your word.  I for one, cannot accept this.  If you could provide the name, at least we could try and see if there is any validity to this.

George Vandurkuur.  http://www.tsacademy.ca/UP/e-Lectures.jsp

Thank you very much.

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 06:03:49 PM

I am not going to bother listing them again.  I will give you a clue, though.  One was the head of the science department at the Ontario museum of science, one was an esteemed professor of philosophy at a major university, and one was a researcher.  Let's see how you deny all of these facts this time.

What is the Ontario museum of science, I live in Ontario and have never heard of this and a google search revealed no such place.  Why would a science museum have a subdivision of department of science?  I am going looking for your post where you put his name up, but on its face this sounds fishy.  Also a professor of philosophy is not a scientist.  They could be a creationist for all we know.

EDIT: I found this post which I assume you were just referring to.  So you  meant the Ontario Science Centre, fair enough, but you have never mentioned his name.  We basically have no way of corroborating this, and are being asked to take this at your word.  I for one, cannot accept this.  If you could provide the name, at least we could try and see if there is any validity to this.

I have made some searches for persons at an astronomical observatory and an amateur radio organization with no problems. It would seem it would be no problem to contact the Ontario Science Centre for information if the name of the person in question was known. I cite a search I made some time ago for information on Rowbotham's claims for credentials at the University of Edinburgh, which proved Rowbotham's claims were false, since he was not even listed in names of students who had ever attended Edinburgh.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 18, 2014, 07:20:05 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 06:03:49 PM

I am not going to bother listing them again.  I will give you a clue, though.  One was the head of the science department at the Ontario museum of science, one was an esteemed professor of philosophy at a major university, and one was a researcher.  Let's see how you deny all of these facts this time.

What is the Ontario museum of science, I live in Ontario and have never heard of this and a google search revealed no such place.  Why would a science museum have a subdivision of department of science?  I am going looking for your post where you put his name up, but on its face this sounds fishy.  Also a professor of philosophy is not a scientist.  They could be a creationist for all we know.

EDIT: I found this post which I assume you were just referring to.  So you  meant the Ontario Science Centre, fair enough, but you have never mentioned his name.  We basically have no way of corroborating this, and are being asked to take this at your word.  I for one, cannot accept this.  If you could provide the name, at least we could try and see if there is any validity to this.

George Vandurkuur.  http://www.tsacademy.ca/UP/e-Lectures.jsp

Are you basing your assumption that George Vandukuur is FEer on the film "In Search of the Edge"?

EDIT: If you are, you will want to know that George Vandukuur is not a FEer, but made the film as a way to provoke critical thinking.

http://www.bullfrogfilms.com/guides/searchguide.pdf

See what I am talking about?  RE response is, "he was lying or joking."

See what I am talking about?  RE response is, "he was lying or joking."

Jroa, the people who made the film are on the record saying that none of the participants of the film are FEers.  Can you provide evidence that contraverts this?

It is not like I am just proposing this from personal credulity right?  I provided evidence.  Could you return the favor?

Leo Ferrari (RIP) was a founding member of the Flat Earth Society of Canada.  Are you saying he was lying or joking around?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Ferrari

Leo Ferrari (RIP) was a founding member of the Flat Earth Society of Canada.  Are you saying he was lying or joking around?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Ferrari

Sorry, I was pretty sure we were talking about George Vandurkuur.  Anyway, I am not saying that, the people who made the film "In Search of the Edge" are saying that.  I am not sure they would characterize it as lying or joking, but for lets say he was not earnest according to them.

Leo Ferrari was in that documentary and he was a founding member of the Flat Earth Society of Canada.  When people say things you don't like, you pretend that they were just pretending.  How sad of you. 

Jroa, instead of tossing an Ad Hominem my way, why don't you read the link I provided that explicitly says Leo Ferrari and George Vandurkuur are not seriously FEers?  If you have an issue with my source I encourage you to address that.

If I was the conspiracy, I would make that same disclaimer.  Hardly proof of anything. 

If I was the conspiracy, I would make that same disclaimer.  Hardly proof of anything.

Well you just jumped the shark.  You accused me of believing what I want, even though I provided evidence, but the second something disagrees with you, you assume it is a conspiracy with no evidence whatsoever?  The troll is weak in this one...

I made a simple statement.  Either you are accusing me of being a liar, or you are saying that I am wrong.  Which is it? 

I made a simple statement.  Either you are accusing me of being a liar, or you are saying that I am wrong.  Which is it?

1. Proposing a conspiracy and discarding my evidence because of it is hardly simple. 

2. Where is your evidence?

3.  Can't you be wrong and a liar? 

Evidence of what?  I made a statement.  I could be lying, and I could also be wrong.  However, you are asking me to provide evidence that I am either lying or wrong.  Does this not seem wrong? 

Evidence of what?  I made a statement.  I could be lying, and I could also be wrong.  However, you are asking me to provide evidence that I am either lying or wrong.  Does this not seem wrong?

A statement alone is not enough to discredit the evidence I provided.  It is a mere opinion.  I am challenging you to furnish this debate with something of substance.

Quote from: ausGeoff on July 18, 2014, 06:28:21 PM

What do you mean by you're "not going to bother" posting their names?  It would've taken less time than posting your refusal to do so LOL.

I think I've called your bluff.  Prove me wrong if you can.

I have listed names over and over for you.  You brush off the names, and then ask for more.  I am done with that.

Thank you.  You've just proved my point.  Well done.

My "opinion" could be just as true as any of the statements that you sling around. 

My "opinion" could be just as true as any of the statements that you sling around.

I provided evidence to support mine, you have not ergo there is a reason to believe my statement and none to believe yours.

I provide evidence all the time.  You just seem to like to pretend that you are the only one offering evidence. 

I provide evidence all the time.  You just seem to like to pretend that you are the only one offering evidence.

Only in the case of the people involved in "In Search of the Edge".  Stop being so defensive.

A scientist and a university professor could not possibly be serious when appearing in a documentary? 

I scientist and a university professor could not possibly be serious when appearing in a documentary?

Nice straw man.