Flat Earth Proof: Rain comes from sky and clouds just an evaporation effect

  • 113 Replies
  • 46454 Views
?

TigerWidow

  • 67
  • +0/-0
Nice "proof" mate.  ::) When was the definition of proof changed? I must have missed that memo.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30115
  • +133/-102
  • The Only Yang Scholar in Ying Universe
Nice "proof" mate.  ::) When was the definition of proof changed? I must have missed that memo.

You have missed the life.
He (somebody) is a troll homo playing role of girl.

(Look at the date)

WERERPC LEVEL2

DAY 1 ENDS IN (ESTIMATED):


*

CaptainMagpie

  • 331
  • +0/-0
  • Aristibird of Knowledge
Nice "proof" mate.  ::) When was the definition of proof changed? I must have missed that memo.

You have missed the life.
You have missed addressing my issue with you and you being a troll and possibly a liar.
fuck off penguin.  I'll take my ban to tell you to go fuck your self.  Ban please.   I am waiting.

*

Round and Proud

  • 802
  • +0/-0
  • Speculative fiction writer
Clouds are not reason. Clouds are result. Usually clouds occur when it's raining, but sometimes they aren't occurs.

Cloudless rain possible with flat earth but it is impossible with the globe earth.

Cloudless rain:



" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

This one is better cloudless rain:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Are clouds necessary for rain? No. Let’s imagine it is 100% humidity outside. And like a NJ summer there is not a cloud in the sky, the water is still all gaseous. If there is a small decrease in temp, pressure, or both the relative humidity will rise to over 100% and the water must condense out. You will get rain without a cloud in the sky.

.... is blabla :)

I can make the video.  Raining like hell, then point the camera to one open patch of blue sky. 
Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime...

?

richaddis

  • 243
  • +0/-0


Just took this picture looking over the river Mersey. Guess what that is Īntikam? It's a cloud with rain pouring down from it. It approached over the river and soaked everyone on this side!

Do you see the rain above the cloud? No.

Do you see the rain below the cloud? Yes.

Therefore, the rain does not come through the cloud as you state... It comes from the cloud.

*

Round and Proud

  • 802
  • +0/-0
  • Speculative fiction writer


Just took this picture looking over the river Mersey. Guess what that is Īntikam? It's a cloud with rain pouring down from it. It approached over the river and soaked everyone on this side!

Do you see the rain above the cloud? No.

Do you see the rain below the cloud? Yes.

Therefore, the rain does not come through the cloud as you state... It comes from the cloud.

Side note: Don't try and fly a light plane through that rain. The air  current is dropping faster than you can climb
Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime...

?

richaddis

  • 243
  • +0/-0


Just took this picture looking over the river Mersey. Guess what that is Īntikam? It's a cloud with rain pouring down from it. It approached over the river and soaked everyone on this side!

Do you see the rain above the cloud? No.

Do you see the rain below the cloud? Yes.

Therefore, the rain does not come through the cloud as you state... It comes from the cloud.

Side note: Don't try and fly a light plane through that rain. The air  current is dropping faster than you can climb

Note taken... Will pack down my single engine now then.

Damn that's my ride home fucked.

*

Round and Proud

  • 802
  • +0/-0
  • Speculative fiction writer


Just took this picture looking over the river Mersey. Guess what that is Īntikam? It's a cloud with rain pouring down from it. It approached over the river and soaked everyone on this side!

Do you see the rain above the cloud? No.

Do you see the rain below the cloud? Yes.

Therefore, the rain does not come through the cloud as you state... It comes from the cloud.

Side note: Don't try and fly a light plane through that rain. The air  current is dropping faster than you can climb

Note taken... Will pack down my single engine now then.

Damn that's my ride home fucked.

I miss flying. But with cost of fuel and my diabetes and now some significant hearing loss...
Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime...

*

getrealzommb

  • 894
  • +0/-0
  • We do actually live on a ball: But who cares?
Correct, at 900kph this tends to happen.

I don't jump with 900 kph. But since f=m*a, and the ocean is certainly more than a thousand times heavier than a cloud, .9 kph ought to suffice.
If a cloud can drop 2500mm of rain in 48 hours how much does it weigh?
And do try to keep up, nobody is interested in how fast you can jump.

You cannot weigh a cloud, but you could estimate the weight of the water content.

Cloud droplets are spherical and the density of water is known, so the number and size of the droplets can be measured in a known volume (usually one cubic centimetre). Multiply this by the total volume of the cloud and you can calculate its weight.

the trouble with saying "2500mm in 48 hours" is that clouds are dynamic after even just 1 Minuit you are not measuring the same cloud. new droplets have formed, some have condensed and fallen, wind has altered the clouds position etc.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2016, 04:10:51 AM by getrealzommb »

?

racionador

  • 128
  • +0/-0
i dont think that Op is a troll, he is just fanatic.

if he believe so much in what he say why so he just dont take a camera and make their own photos?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence


Just took this picture looking over the river Mersey. Guess what that is Īntikam? It's a cloud with rain pouring down from it. It approached over the river and soaked everyone on this side!

Do you see the rain above the cloud? No.

Do you see the rain below the cloud? Yes.

Therefore, the rain does not come through the cloud as you state... It comes from the cloud.

Side note: Don't try and fly a light plane through that rain. The air  current is dropping faster than you can climb

Note taken... Will pack down my single engine now then.

Damn that's my ride home fucked.

I miss flying. But with cost of fuel and my diabetes and now some significant hearing loss...

Don't forget to mention your mental handycaps. 

*

CaptainMagpie

  • 331
  • +0/-0
  • Aristibird of Knowledge
Don't forget to mention your mental handycaps.
What are those? Hats for your hand that you invented? Gloves already work so well though and I feel like they keep you warmer.
fuck off penguin.  I'll take my ban to tell you to go fuck your self.  Ban please.   I am waiting.

?

richaddis

  • 243
  • +0/-0
Don't forget to mention your mental handycaps.
What are those? Hats for your hand that you invented? Gloves already work so well though and I feel like they keep you warmer.

Jroa, for a professional troll, your poor spelling sure makes you an easy target!

*

TheSchwa1337

  • 55
  • +0/-0
  • Confused quite honestly on the whole matter @ hand


This thread should most definitely be moved to Complete Nonsense.
Why?

Because it is and has been proved as complete nonsense by not only the picture I have posted, but by the experiences of anyone who has ever seen rain fall from a cloud, which I postulate is around 99.99999% of mankind. It was off to a non-start.

Have you seen rain fall from a cloud? Do you think that rain is independent of clouds and falls from the firmament? If I told you that trees didn't actually grow from the ground, but grew from an invisible substance a metre above the ground would you think that was a sensible suggestion? Or would the fact that you can actually see them growing from the ground make my suggestion "complete nonsense"? Ask yourself these questions Tappet.
Now you are talking about tree's? Next you will be telling me I need tree's to breath!
(Read entire thread thus far.)

0.0 But you do need trees to breath.
Quote from: Papa Legba on April 29, 2016, 01:15:13 PM

I've got top men working on babyhighspeed's potentially disastrous amazon voodoo detector recalibration issue right now...

Top... Men!

*

TheSchwa1337

  • 55
  • +0/-0
  • Confused quite honestly on the whole matter @ hand


This thread should most definitely be moved to Complete Nonsense.
Why?

Because it is and has been proved as complete nonsense by not only the picture I have posted, but by the experiences of anyone who has ever seen rain fall from a cloud, which I postulate is around 99.99999% of mankind. It was off to a non-start.

Have you seen rain fall from a cloud? Do you think that rain is independent of clouds and falls from the firmament? If I told you that trees didn't actually grow from the ground, but grew from an invisible substance a metre above the ground would you think that was a sensible suggestion? Or would the fact that you can actually see them growing from the ground make my suggestion "complete nonsense"? Ask yourself these questions Tappet.
Now you are talking about tree's? Next you will be telling me I need tree's to breath!
Since you brought it up, yes in the long term you need trees (well all vegetation) to breathe! Vegetation generates the oxygen used by people, animals, fires, engines, etc.
Mind you this has nothing to do with the case!
Since you and many others have said I live in a basement, could you give me the mathematical formula to determine how many tree's I would need to create oxygen in there with the door shut to live. Oh, and do not forget to allow for them to breath oxygen at night.

Not sure if serious o.o

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=can+humans+survive+without+trees
Quote from: Papa Legba on April 29, 2016, 01:15:13 PM

I've got top men working on babyhighspeed's potentially disastrous amazon voodoo detector recalibration issue right now...

Top... Men!

*

TheSchwa1337

  • 55
  • +0/-0
  • Confused quite honestly on the whole matter @ hand
Clouds are not reason. Clouds are result. Usually clouds occur when it's raining, but sometimes they aren't occurs.

Cloudless rain possible with flat earth but it is impossible with the globe earth.

Cloudless rain:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

This one is better cloudless rain:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Are clouds necessary for rain? No. Let’s imagine it is 100% humidity outside. And like a NJ summer there is not a cloud in the sky, the water is still all gaseous. If there is a small decrease in temp, pressure, or both the relative humidity will rise to over 100% and the water must condense out. You will get rain without a cloud in the sky.

.... is blabla :)

Very intelligent response Īntikam. I guess this is you conceding in the most humble way you know.

I do not get addressed to trolls so much. I'm waiting the forum management solve this problem. There is so much trolls here about %86 is over all of the internet sites. This is not a troll working this is an attack.

So;
I don't need to attrition myself dealing with trolls. This is the language that you understand . I will continue my own work about different issues. Who post an objection abot it or not. I can not waste time for empty . Because you trolls are empty and just working for distraction .

This is not my game, because i'm not a player like you.
If the mods did start to crack down on trolls you would be the first to go. You were presented with an image that clearly shows your argument is not correct but then claim you cannot load the image and therefore we have not proved anything. BUT, you have said in other threads that you can use your home computer to access what was blocked before so we know you would have the ability to see it eventually if you were not being dishonest about it before. If that isn't the definition of a troll I don't know what is so you are definitely a player.

You are making perception study to veer the meaning of the troll. Aw all we know that troll is meaning of working on a institution and defend something which his institution support. Here is the institution is NASA and ESA. Here almost all RE's are troll. I'm or nobody of FES can't be troll because the FES management do not give us wages and they know this. but you are messing their minds. all they need to ban you all. Except this, i don't see another solve.

If all non Flat Earthers were banned, where would people like me go, trying to learn of the truth that seems to pertain to the idea of a flat earth.

I think that, if implemented, your ideas would be a bit much (more detrimental then helpful, I'm sure you can voice your concerns further in the suggestions board though)...People come to this site for truth, some find it, some see a lot of crazy. You're turning people off with the latter. Hence the bad reception of your idea. I'm sure you mean well, even going so far as to present your ideas in the best way you could, but as stated, you're just confusing people now.

I'm not trying to be rude as I'm sure you've felt attacked by the responses posted, I'm just trying to make the point that during all this you seem a bit unreceptive to the ideas presented to you...whatever your reasons...
Quote from: Papa Legba on April 29, 2016, 01:15:13 PM

I've got top men working on babyhighspeed's potentially disastrous amazon voodoo detector recalibration issue right now...

Top... Men!

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Don't forget to mention your mental handycaps.
What are those? Hats for your hand that you invented? Gloves already work so well though and I feel like they keep you warmer.
I asked your mom about your mental handicaps.  She said she will let me know when she is done with me. 

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
I would have thought you would be at sea world trying to find an equal mate.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0


This thread should most definitely be moved to Complete Nonsense.
Why?

Because it is and has been proved as complete nonsense by not only the picture I have posted, but by the experiences of anyone who has ever seen rain fall from a cloud, which I postulate is around 99.99999% of mankind. It was off to a non-start.

Have you seen rain fall from a cloud? Do you think that rain is independent of clouds and falls from the firmament? If I told you that trees didn't actually grow from the ground, but grew from an invisible substance a metre above the ground would you think that was a sensible suggestion? Or would the fact that you can actually see them growing from the ground make my suggestion "complete nonsense"? Ask yourself these questions Tappet.
Now you are talking about tree's? Next you will be telling me I need tree's to breath!
(Read entire thread thus far.)

0.0 But you do need trees to breath.
And the trees breath oxygen at night, but just a little bit. They are considerate enough to leave a little for us.
There must be a formula to work out how many trees are needed per human, sounds to me like a great university research project for the budding young scientist.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
  • +0/-0
FYI, I believe that >50% and upwards of 80% of the oxygen is produced in the oceans/water by algae. Just saying.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

?

NewtSmooth

  • 132
  • +0/-0
I'm surprised nobody's discussing this.
OP's explanation would have us believe that the sky has a firmament of ice, and the presence of the sun melts the ice to create rain. This would naturally make the following true:
1. Either clouds or rain or both are always forming during the day.
2. Neither clouds nor rain are ever forming at night.
And everybody knows that neither of these things are true. In any if-then statement, if the -then statement is false, then by the very nature of conditionals the if- statement cannot be true.

OP also claimed that the water cycle does not exist. Neat. Tell me more. Any sources on that?
How come you can see clouds rising up from evaporating lakes on a hot day?
Where does dew come from? Dew normally doesn't occur in areas of low pressure (updrafts pull moisture away from the ground), and we can clearly see a lack of any clouds. You can go outside at night and know it's not raining but find dew in the morning. Meteorology's proven humidity is a thing, and overnight cooling causes it to condense. What's your theory on that? Where does dew come from?
Same question with fog. That's a cloud at the surface. Where did it come from? 

RET states that gravity holds gases to the surface, which also quite easily explains why there's a gradient of decreasing air pressure as one climbs higher above Earth which decreases the effect of its gravity. There's not exactly any "boundary" between atmosphere and outer space, the atmosphere thins out to virtual nonexistence.
FET, on the other hand, says there's a firmament holding in the atmosphere. And now OP is claiming that firmament is made of ice. If what is known in RET as outer space lies beyond the firmament, then the hard vacuum would simply boil off the ice. There's no atmospheric pressure against the ice's surface from the infinite empty region outside, so it naturally sublimates until the water vapor fills that void. So by now that ice layer would be entirely gone, as would the atmosphere because gravity isn't real, and we would all be dead. Thus, OP's claim cannot possibly even fit the Flat Earth Theory. An ad hoc claim that the ice is infinitely thick would mean that, seeing as ice is not perfectly transparent, we wouldn't be able to see the stars, and we know that's not true. Again, in an if-then statement where the -then is false, so is the if- by default.

If you're going to invoke Occam's Razor and say that because we don't entirely understand the nature of gravity yet it can't possibly be true, I'm going to invoke Occam's Razor and challenge you to prove that Universal Acceleration can explain decreasing air pressure, that aetheric shielding is a thing, and that the Shadow Object exists, or else because you can't explain these things FET as a whole is debunked.

Another thing: Your diagram says this. "Forming the clouds decreases temperature caused by Evaporation so other waters continue to fall down." Scientific evidence has proven that when water evaporates, it draws in energy from its surroundings, and actually has a cooling effect. Sweat is evidence of this, that's how sweat works. The sweat on your body evaporates and carries thermal energy away with it. This is also why many outdoor workers dip the handles of their (non-electric) tools in water, if it's available, to cool them off if the tool has been lying in the sun and has gotten hot. Condensation works the opposite way and has the opposite effect. So if that's supposed to be one of the driving forces acting between clouds and rain, tadaaa~, your lack of understanding of easily demonstrable fact has just wrecked your theory.

So now I've done my part, I've cited reasons why I have absolutely no reason to believe you. You've created this "exposition of truth" but have given absolutely no real evidence for it. All you have is a diagram, again, with no evidence to support it. Go ahead and actually prove your idea. Until such time as an FEer actually proves this instead of cowardly shifting the burden of proof, or saying a cloud's mist can shred an airplane, or saying that everything else is a NASA-funded cover-up so only this could be the truth, I'm going to leave you with this.

This thread needs to be moved to complete nonsense.
Quote from: jroa
Wow, great non-response
Quote from: disputeone
I don't understand females but am still pretty sure they exist.
Quote from: markjo
Your first mistake was to presume there would be an academic debate anywhere on this forum.

?

NewtSmooth

  • 132
  • +0/-0
And the trees breath oxygen at night, but just a little bit. They are considerate enough to leave a little for us.
There must be a formula to work out how many trees are needed per human, sounds to me like a great university research project for the budding young scientist.
Plant something in a sealed container with no oxygen but normal levels of carbon dioxide and another with no carbon dioxide but normal levels of oxygen. The one with CO2 but no oxygen will survive and the other won't. Why? Because science has proven that plants survive by photosynthesis which requires CO2 and gives off oxygen as a waste product.
Do I have an exact formula for you? No. I do not.
Do I necessarily need to know everything about the universe to know something about a limited part of it? No. I do not.
I do understand the nature of a simple plant, however, that being that sunlight on its leaves gives it the energy to convert carbon dioxide and water into glucose and oxygen, that the level of sunlight will affect how fast the exchange occurs, that the level of necessary materials (CO2, H2O) affects whether there's any reactants for the reaction to occur, and that every reaction has an optimal temperature range. I'm sure if you'd read a book and stop shifting the burden of proof as if it means something you'd quickly find more information on how many trees are needed to sustain a single human being. Plus, as mentioned here,
FYI, I believe that >50% and upwards of 80% of the oxygen is produced in the oceans/water by algae. Just saying.
most of Earth's oxygen is created by organisms in the oceans, but it's plankton not algae. This Wikipedia article has two sources for a range of estimates from 50% to 85% of the world's oxygen production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoplankton#Oxygen_production
Quote from: jroa
Wow, great non-response
Quote from: disputeone
I don't understand females but am still pretty sure they exist.
Quote from: markjo
Your first mistake was to presume there would be an academic debate anywhere on this forum.

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0

Do I necessarily need to know everything about the universe to know something about a limited part of it?
You do if you are going to tell everybody how the universe works.
Trees apparently breath out co2 at night and breath out oxygen through the day. So a tree should live in a sealed container.
It produces its own oxygen and its own co2. ???
« Last Edit: May 04, 2016, 01:39:13 PM by tappet »

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
  • +0/-0
FYI, I believe that >50% and upwards of 80% of the oxygen is produced in the oceans/water by algae. Just saying.
most of Earth's oxygen is created by organisms in the oceans, but it's plankton not algae. This Wikipedia article has two sources for a range of estimates from 50% to 85% of the world's oxygen production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoplankton#Oxygen_production
Um FYI, phytoplankton are microalgae.
(http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/phyto.html)

Algae is a general term of photosynthetic organisms, that includes phytoplankton:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae)

From your quote "Phytoplankton are photosynthesizing microscopic organisms". But these are not the ONLY things in the oceans producing O2. Basically all "green" algae do - including seaweed.
(http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/12/important-organism/)
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

?

NewtSmooth

  • 132
  • +0/-0

Do I necessarily need to know everything about the universe to know something about a limited part of it?
You do if you are going to tell everybody how the universe works.
Trees apparently breath out co2 at night and breath out oxygen through the day. So a tree should live in a sealed container.
It produces its own oxygen and its own co2. ???
1. No I don't. I don't need to know absolutely everything, including the fact that trees don't take in oxygen or exude CO2, the tell you that one thing. I know that one thing, and thats all I need to say it. If everyone had to be omniscient to explain anything about their immediate surroundings, science would not exist whatsoever.
2. No they don't. They don't have an internal clock that reverses everything about how they work. CO2 in, O2 out. Always.

FYI, I believe that >50% and upwards of 80% of the oxygen is produced in the oceans/water by algae. Just saying.
most of Earth's oxygen is created by organisms in the oceans, but it's plankton not algae. This Wikipedia article has two sources for a range of estimates from 50% to 85% of the world's oxygen production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoplankton#Oxygen_production
Um FYI, phytoplankton are microalgae.
(http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/phyto.html)

Algae is a general term of photosynthetic organisms, that includes phytoplankton:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae)

From your quote "Phytoplankton are photosynthesizing microscopic organisms". But these are not the ONLY things in the oceans producing O2. Basically all "green" algae do - including seaweed.
(http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/12/important-organism/)
Oh, didn't know that. Tbh I didn't check that, had to go to work. I knew basically any green plant photosynthesizes but didn't know the taxonomy of phytoplankton and algae, thought those were separate things. Thanks for the info.
Quote from: jroa
Wow, great non-response
Quote from: disputeone
I don't understand females but am still pretty sure they exist.
Quote from: markjo
Your first mistake was to presume there would be an academic debate anywhere on this forum.

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0

1. No I don't. I don't need to know absolutely everything, including the fact that trees don't take in oxygen or exude CO2, the tell you that one thing. I know that one thing, and thats all I need to say it. If everyone had to be omniscient to explain anything about their immediate surroundings, science would not exist whatsoever.
2. No they don't. They don't have an internal clock that reverses everything about how they work. CO2 in, O2 out. Always.


Wot?

?

NewtSmooth

  • 132
  • +0/-0

    1. No I don't. I don't need to know absolutely everything, including the fact that trees don't take in oxygen or exude CO2, the tell you that one thing. I know that one thing, and thats all I need to say it. If everyone had to be omniscient to explain anything about their immediate surroundings, science would not exist whatsoever.
    2. No they don't. They don't have an internal clock that reverses everything about how they work. CO2 in, O2 out. Always.


    Wot?
    Need I repeat?
    1. If people have to know everything about everything that exists to say something about how and why something exists, then nobody would ever be able to say anything about anything. People don't have to be able to see the entirety of the universe to be able to know what's right in front of their face.
    2. That's right. There's nothing in a tree that reverses everything about them. Biologists have checked.
    Not that complicated. [/list]
    « Last Edit: May 05, 2016, 09:51:46 AM by NewtSmooth »
    Quote from: jroa
    Wow, great non-response
    Quote from: disputeone
    I don't understand females but am still pretty sure they exist.
    Quote from: markjo
    Your first mistake was to presume there would be an academic debate anywhere on this forum.

    ?

    tappet

    • 2162
    • +0/-0

      1. No I don't. I don't need to know absolutely everything, including the fact that trees don't take in oxygen or exude CO2, the tell you that one thing. I know that one thing, and thats all I need to say it. If everyone had to be omniscient to explain anything about their immediate surroundings, science would not exist whatsoever.
      2. No they don't. They don't have an internal clock that reverses everything about how they work. CO2 in, O2 out. Always.


      Wot?
      Need I repeat?
      1. If people have to know everything about everything that exists to say something about how and why something exists, then nobody would ever be able to say anything about anything. People don't have to be able to see the entirety of the universe to be able to know what's right in front of their face.
      2. That's right. There's nothing in a tree that reverses everything about them. Biologists have checked.
      Not that complicated. [/list]
      Sorry, last time I checked trees breathed, used, through respiration or whatever else you wanted call it take in oxygen of a night. But then, you did  say you dont need to know your stuff to educate people.

      ?

      NewtSmooth

      • 132
      • +0/-0
        No I don't. I don't need to know absolutely everything, including the fact that trees don't take in oxygen or exude CO2, the tell you that one thing. I know that one thing, and thats all I need to say it. If everyone had to be omniscient to explain anything about their immediate surroundings, science would not exist whatsoever.
        Wot?
        If people have to know everything about everything that exists to say something about how and why something exists, then nobody would ever be able to say anything about anything. People don't have to be able to see the entirety of the universe to be able to know what's right in front of their face.
        Sorry, last time I checked trees breathed, used, through respiration or whatever else you wanted call it take in oxygen of a night. But then, you did  say you dont need to know your stuff to educate people.
        HAAAAAAAAAAAA. Honestly when did you ever actually check to see whether a plant was BREATHING?

        While you're digging through your brain trying to find the date and time of that non-existent event, you can stop twisting my words so much. You're not even paraphrasing here. If I positively know one fact, but don't know absolutely everything else, that doesn't mean I don't know that fact. If you're going to make a claim and "educate people", in that specific area you obviously absolutely have to know your stuff.

        But does an algebra teacher have to know what his third-cousin Ralph on the other side of the world is having for lunch next Wednesday for his students to understand polynomials? Does a medical school have to have flawless microeconomics models for their surgeons to not kill somebody? Or does a woodshop instructor have to know how many atoms there are in the universe to tell somebody how to not cut their thumb off? No. No. And no. If someone is going to teach someone else something, all they need to know is that what they're saying is accurate, and nothing else, to be teaching correctly. End of subject, it's not that complicated, I'm not going to say this again.

        Edit: I don't know where this [/list] marker is coming from and can't seem to make it go away. Edit 2: Adding that finally did it. Ugh.
        « Last Edit: May 05, 2016, 05:30:36 PM by NewtSmooth »
        Quote from: jroa
        Wow, great non-response
        Quote from: disputeone
        I don't understand females but am still pretty sure they exist.
        Quote from: markjo
        Your first mistake was to presume there would be an academic debate anywhere on this forum.

        ?

        tappet

        • 2162
        • +0/-0
        "HAAAAAAAAAAAA. Honestly when did you ever actually check to see whether a plant was BREATHING?"


        https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=p0FwU53DLKqN8Qee4IDAAw#q=trees+breathe+oxygen+at+night
         ???
        « Last Edit: May 05, 2016, 11:21:59 PM by tappet »