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

  • 113 Replies
  • 46441 Views
?

NewtSmooth

  • 132
  • +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
 ???
That's ordinary metabolism? Still not breathing? They do that constantly, including during the day. Again, nothing about them really changes at night. No forward/reverse switch.
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
 ???
That's ordinary metabolism? Still not breathing? They do that constantly, including during the day. Again, nothing about them really changes at night. No forward/reverse switch.
Look at you weasel your way out of your error!
And  you are here to educate people on how the universe works.
On the tree thing alone Donald would have to give you a fail.


?

NewtSmooth

  • 132
  • +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
 ???
That's ordinary metabolism? Still not breathing? They do that constantly, including during the day. Again, nothing about them really changes at night. No forward/reverse switch.
Look at you weasel your way out of your error!
And  you are here to educate people on how the universe works.
On the tree thing alone Donald would have to give you a fail.
Alright, yes, I honestly did make a mistake there. Nobody likes being wrong and I did try to stretch it too much. I don't mean to justify my lapse of memory, as it really was a simple thing that I forgot, this is only why it happened. Part of it is that nobody's perfect. Also, my frustration I entirely forgot cellular metabolism when you made your flippant remark of
Now you are talking about tree's? Next you will be telling me I need tree's to breath!
to deflect attention from your obviously false belief that rain falls above clouds and lack of trust in human observation in a visually verifiable situation and after you actually claimed that people have to know everything about the universe to know anything at all. Your complete lack of skill in putting together a basic sentence, as evidenced in those following posts, only added to my frustration.

You see, psychology has established a link between impaired cognitive ability and various things like drunkenness and sleep deprivation, but also exposure to idiots and hypocrites.

Let me assure you again I still don't mean to justify. But to consistently ignore a thread where FET has actually been proven wrong is a cowardly, idiotic way to weasel one's way out of their error, and even more so is to resort to attacking the character of the messenger, yet this is what is always the result here, where claims abound that history and reknowned scientists employed similar tactics to despicable manipulate our view  of the world itself; and few things are more idiotic than believing most rain comes from above a storm cloud, looking above a storm cloud, yet still choosing to believe it after existing on this Earth for years and having a picture of the event right in front of one's eyes while saying that. Anyone other than this Donald would give that a fail, and yet you would portray me as the weasel, unfit to teach because of
the tree thing alone

In all honesty I still don't mean to justify forgetting that, I'll probably never live that down. But I hope now my situation is more understandable and relatable, yes?

Edit: formatting.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2016, 06:58:18 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
I accept your apology, but back to the tree thing. Firstly a REer brought trees into the debate, then I questioned whether we really need them to breathe. Another REer confirmed my beliefs saying 80% of oxygen comes from algae, but then you arrived babbling all sorts of nonsense. Now I am going to question why we need to carry on with this world wide tree planting charade and you are going to tell me why I am not as intelligent as you and that we all have to plant trees.
I look forward to your next reply, good luck.

?

NewtSmooth

  • 132
  • +0/-0
I accept your apology, but back to the tree thing. Firstly a REer brought trees into the debate,

No. Here's that REer's post. You can see that he was using them as an illustration of the point that if you can clearly and obviously observe that something isn't true, there is no reason to believe it.
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.

then I questioned whether we really need them to breathe.

Again pretty flippant. It implied richaddis was saying something nonsensical, when really he was only informing you on why you shouldn't believe something nonsensical.

Another REer confirmed my beliefs saying 80% of oxygen comes from algae, but then you arrived babbling all sorts of nonsense.

Yep. Most oxygen does come from algae and trees do still metabolize. Both true there.

Now I am going to question why we need to carry on with this world wide tree planting charade (1) and you are going to tell me why I am not as intelligent as you (2) and that we all have to plant trees. (3)
I look forward to your next reply, good luck. (4)
(1) Because the trees are important for more than just some of our oxygen production. Do you have any idea how many of the world's ecosystems are reliant on trees? If there were no trees anymore there would be a mass extinction event
(2) You had a rough time even understanding the natures of knowledge and observation. Those speak for themselves here.
(3) Most people don't want the global extinctions mentioned in (1) to occur.
(4) Typical FE conviction that nobody can answer them and they need that luck. Please step down off your pedestal, you might hurt yourself.
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.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
  • +0/-0
I accept your apology, but back to the tree thing. Firstly a REer brought trees into the debate, then I questioned whether we really need them to breathe. Another REer confirmed my beliefs saying 80% of oxygen comes from algae, but then you arrived babbling all sorts of nonsense. Now I am going to question why we need to carry on with this world wide tree planting charade and you are going to tell me why I am not as intelligent as you and that we all have to plant trees.
I look forward to your next reply, good luck.
My cut on this is safety. We now have the capacity to destroy life on a global scale. The Japanese Fukushima atomic accident polluted most of the Pacific ocean to a lesser or greater degree.

If the oceans go, we may be relying on that ~20%+ trees (notice the GREEN stuff on the image above) to survive until the oceans clean themselves. Radioactive half-life of cesium 137 is like 30 years (Plutonium ~80+, Uranium MUCH longer). So every 30 years or so, HALF the radioactivity remains. It would take several CENTURIES, MILLINIA or even never as far as we are concerned, to clean up any nuclear accident - just look a Chernobyl and the surrounding area. (http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/08/radiation-will-pollute-area-around.html)

BTW, Biblically - Rev 8:8-9 - "Then the second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned to blood, a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed." Not good especially if it is the algae. This could mean a nuclear accident or intentional nuclear bombing (because of the ships).
“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."

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0
[1) Because the trees are important for more than just some of our oxygen production. Do you have any idea how many of the world's ecosystems are reliant on trees? If there were no trees anymore there would be a mass extinction event
Thats cute, we will be fine. There are more trees on earth now than ever.
Although, you probably still think Mongolia and the Great Plains need replanting.

?

NewtSmooth

  • 132
  • +0/-0
[1) Because the trees are important for more than just some of our oxygen production. Do you have any idea how many of the world's ecosystems are reliant on trees? If there were no trees anymore there would be a mass extinction event
Thats cute, we will be fine. There are more trees on earth now than ever.
Although, you probably still think Mongolia and the Great Plains need replanting.
I don't know about about Mongolia in detail so I won't go into that.
In the Great Plains, it's important to replant around fields to prevent erosion while fields aren't planted. Anyone who knows anything about agriculture would tell you that.

If you ever stop cherry-picking facts to unempirically support your ignorance, maybe try reading about the number of species unique to the Amazon and its rate of deforestation, along with the other effects of this like the more feral ones losing their habitats and prowling human inhabited areas instead.

In virtually every deforested region there's strong motives for reforestation. Maybe before you call others stupid and unreasonable, you could pick up a book.
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

In virtually every deforested region there's strong motives for reforestation. Maybe before you call others stupid and unreasonable, you could pick up a book.
Tell me who deforested the Great Plains? I looked in a book but found nothing.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
  • +0/-0
[1) Because the trees are important for more than just some of our oxygen production. Do you have any idea how many of the world's ecosystems are reliant on trees? If there were no trees anymore there would be a mass extinction event
That's cute, we will be fine. There are more trees on earth now than ever.
Although, you probably still think Mongolia and the Great Plains need replanting.
1) I am sick and tired of people that do stupid things and say "I'm sorry" or "help me! because I am an idiot". You don't care about these NOW because you don't have to. If only YOU die, big deal - no big loss. If EVERYONE on the planet dies, that IS a big deal.
2) The "green life" on land is arguably much easier to kill than in the oceans. The oceans are like 75% of the Earth. Whatever affects them would have to be BIG and last for a VERY LONG time. On land, everything like a forest fire (see the one in Canada ATM) or a drought (see "the Great Dust Bowl) can deforest a location VERY quickly. It will then take YEARS to replace the plant life.
3) Farming also would cause problems because (a) periodically, these BIG plants (like corn) would be cut down reducing the oxygen they produce until they regrow and (b) there would be competition of oxygen vs food.
4) IF we were to be relying solely on land plants for oxygen, we could be wiped off the Earth at just about any time.
5) Finally, as algae is THE bottom of the food chain in the oceans/lakes, if it disappeared, most likely ALL sea life (shrimp, fish, whales, etc.) would die. So, we would TOTALLY rely on land plants and animals for food increasing the need for plants. Animals and people rely on plants for food and oxygen.
6) Anyways, IMO, who cares what you think. Obviously, you are in the group of people that don't care about humanity (its survival). I had another link about "killer asteroids" that FEers don't believe in because, hey, the sky is only a couple thousand miles up. Someone one else had the same total disregard for protection from them as you do about trees. Oh, well.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2016, 06:13:57 AM by Jadyyn »
“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
In virtually every deforested region there's strong motives for reforestation. Maybe before you call others stupid and unreasonable, you could pick up a book.
Tell me who deforested the Great Plains? I looked in a book but found nothing.
Oops, mixed Great Plains with Midwest. Where I live there actually has been significant deforestation, and even in the actual Great Plains some farmers do still plant trees at field borders even though there were formerly no trees there. The reason they do this isn't because they deforested it but because they've stripped the land of grasses so they can farm it, so they need to block out some of the wind to keep the soil from blowing away when the field isn't planted. If you've never heard of this, try "Dust Bowl". So there's still reasons to reforest even without deforestation.

Given that OP's been authoritatively disproven already, that this is completely unrelated to the OP or flat earth in general, and
6) Anyways, IMO, who cares what you think. Obviously, you are in the group of people that don't care about humanity (its survival). I had another link about "killer asteroids" that FEers don't believe in because, hey, the sky is only a couple thousand miles up. Someone one else had the same total disregard for protection from them as you do about trees. Oh, well.
I'm going to leave this discussion because it's getting ridiculous and I'm simply tired of arguing about why we need trees.
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


Given that OP's been authoritatively disproven already, that this is completely unrelated to the OP or flat earth in general, and
6) Anyways, IMO, who cares what you think. Obviously, you are in the group of people that don't care about humanity (its survival). I had another link about "killer asteroids" that FEers don't believe in because, hey, the sky is only a couple thousand miles up. Someone one else had the same total disregard for protection from them as you do about trees. Oh, well.
I'm going to leave this discussion because it's getting ridiculous and I'm simply tired of arguing about why we need trees.
Probably best you did leave,  for the tree discussion is related to the OP and FE. We had not gotten there yet.
But never mind, you and your mate can get back to fantasy stuff now with "killer asteroids" and destruction of the planet senarios. I have seen it all before, shit, I rember back in the 70's when India was going to nuke the world, peak oil and even the early 80's Nasa flying contraptions to far away planets sending back pictures with shadows of Alien craft that will shock the world.
On a leaving note, quick question. How did they dig up the millions of tree stumps after the deforestation for the millions of acres of farms in the 1800's?
Was it done like this?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
« Last Edit: May 08, 2016, 02:58:54 PM by tappet »

?

NewtSmooth

  • 132
  • +0/-0
On a leaving note, quick question. How did they dig up the millions of tree stumps after the deforestation for the millions of acres of farms in the 1800's?
Was it done like this?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
I presume a more efficient method, like tilling because they'd have to anyway [nb]Tilling is an agricultural method of preparing soil by overturning.[/nb] and to prevent grasses from lighting much, [nb]Neither grass nor soil are present in tree stumps, so tilling a tree stump will not be very efficient, especially if targeting brush fire risks, as stated.[/nb] then setting the stumps on fire. They wouldn't have had to tend to the stumps much afterwards, the field is already tilled, and there's free fertilizer in the hole.

Goodbye. [nb]I'll actually probably never leave and end up dying in this thread. I hope I'll have the sense to quit trying to talk sense into someone who doesn't understand what implications are, though.[/nb]

Edit: Footnotes [1] and [2] added for any who failed to grasp the simple logic behind my conjecture, and [3] to add more information on my (tragically) continued entrapment in this ignorant, spammy, trolled, godforsaken thread.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2016, 03:49:43 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
On a leaving note, quick question. How did they dig up the millions of tree stumps after the deforestation for the millions of acres of farms in the 1800's?
Was it done like this?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
I presume a more efficient method, like tilling because they'd have to anyway and to prevent grasses from lighting much, then setting the stumps on fire. They wouldn't have had to tend to the stumps much afterwards, the field is already tilled, and there's free fertilizer in the hole.

Goodbye.
You can not till tree stumps.
Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.
But feel free to tell me about destruction of the "planet" again. It is very entertaining.

*

CaptainMagpie

  • 331
  • +0/-0
  • Aristibird of Knowledge
On a leaving note, quick question. How did they dig up the millions of tree stumps after the deforestation for the millions of acres of farms in the 1800's?
Was it done like this?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
I presume a more efficient method, like tilling because they'd have to anyway and to prevent grasses from lighting much, then setting the stumps on fire. They wouldn't have had to tend to the stumps much afterwards, the field is already tilled, and there's free fertilizer in the hole.

Goodbye.
You can not till tree stumps.
Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.
But feel free to tell me about destruction of the "planet" again. It is very entertaining.
Lacking proper agriculture and farming knowledge does not equate to knowing about the world around you. Nice try though.
fuck off penguin.  I'll take my ban to tell you to go fuck your self.  Ban please.   I am waiting.

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0
On a leaving note, quick question. How did they dig up the millions of tree stumps after the deforestation for the millions of acres of farms in the 1800's?
Was it done like this?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
I presume a more efficient method, like tilling because they'd have to anyway and to prevent grasses from lighting much, then setting the stumps on fire. They wouldn't have had to tend to the stumps much afterwards, the field is already tilled, and there's free fertilizer in the hole.

Goodbye.
You can not till tree stumps.
Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.
But feel free to tell me about destruction of the "planet" again. It is very entertaining.
Lacking proper agriculture and farming knowledge does not equate to knowing about the world around you. Nice try though.
Of coase it does! You need to have solid foundations if you are going to educate people.
If you live on a planet you need deforestation. Who pulled the stumps out?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
On a leaving note, quick question. How did they dig up the millions of tree stumps after the deforestation for the millions of acres of farms in the 1800's?
Was it done like this?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
I presume a more efficient method, like tilling because they'd have to anyway and to prevent grasses from lighting much, then setting the stumps on fire. They wouldn't have had to tend to the stumps much afterwards, the field is already tilled, and there's free fertilizer in the hole.

Goodbye.
You can not till tree stumps.
Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.
But feel free to tell me about destruction of the "planet" again. It is very entertaining.
Lacking proper agriculture and farming knowledge does not equate to knowing about the world around you. Nice try though.
Of coase it does! You need to have solid foundations if you are going to educate people.
If you live on a planet you need deforestation. Who pulled the stumps out?

I have been following this interchange a bit and was hoping something related to the OP might come up - no such luck!
I jsut wondered what all the trees had to do with "Flat Earth Proof: Rain comes from sky and clouds just an evaporation effect".

Maybe some people can't see the "forest for the trees"?

*

Rayzor

  • 12195
  • +0/-6
  • Looking for Occam
On a leaving note, quick question. How did they dig up the millions of tree stumps after the deforestation for the millions of acres of farms in the 1800's?
Was it done like this?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
I presume a more efficient method, like tilling because they'd have to anyway and to prevent grasses from lighting much, then setting the stumps on fire. They wouldn't have had to tend to the stumps much afterwards, the field is already tilled, and there's free fertilizer in the hole.

Goodbye.
You can not till tree stumps.
Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.
But feel free to tell me about destruction of the "planet" again. It is very entertaining.

You forgot  about the "Stump Jump Plough"   a famous Australian invention.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stump-jump_plough

While on the topic,  did anyone ask Intikam how come we get rain at night..  If rain is caused by the sun melting the firmament,  it couldn't ever rain at night.  :)

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

?

NewtSmooth

  • 132
  • +0/-0
While on the topic,  did anyone ask Intikam how come we get rain at night..  If rain is caused by the sun melting the firmament,  it couldn't ever rain at night.  :)

Yeppers  ;)

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.
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


Maybe some people can't see the "forest for the trees"?
Well said, but seriously you gotta stop putting Rayzor and Rabinoz in the same thread

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer


Maybe some people can't see the "forest for the trees"?
Well said, but seriously you gotta stop putting Rayzor and Rabinoz in the same thread
I wasn't really directing my post you. At least Rayzor and NewtSmooth have some on-topic posts.
Sorry I aimed at you!

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
On a leaving note, quick question. How did they dig up the millions of tree stumps after the deforestation for the millions of acres of farms in the 1800's?
Was it done like this?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
I presume a more efficient method, like tilling because they'd have to anyway and to prevent grasses from lighting much, then setting the stumps on fire. They wouldn't have had to tend to the stumps much afterwards, the field is already tilled, and there's free fertilizer in the hole.

Goodbye.
You can not till tree stumps.
Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.
But feel free to tell me about destruction of the "planet" again. It is very entertaining.

You forgot  about the "Stump Jump Plough"   a famous Australian invention.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stump-jump_plough

While on the topic,  did anyone ask Intikam how come we get rain at night..  If rain is caused by the sun melting the firmament,  it couldn't ever rain at night.  :)



I think Intikam got mad because he received a short ban.  After all of his research, study, and analysis, us ungrateful fellow FE'ers banned him for his antisemitic ramblings, so he took his ball and went home. 

?

richaddis

  • 243
  • +0/-0
On a leaving note, quick question. How did they dig up the millions of tree stumps after the deforestation for the millions of acres of farms in the 1800's?
Was it done like this?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
I presume a more efficient method, like tilling because they'd have to anyway and to prevent grasses from lighting much, then setting the stumps on fire. They wouldn't have had to tend to the stumps much afterwards, the field is already tilled, and there's free fertilizer in the hole.

Goodbye.
You can not till tree stumps.
Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.
But feel free to tell me about destruction of the "planet" again. It is very entertaining.

You forgot  about the "Stump Jump Plough"   a famous Australian invention.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stump-jump_plough

While on the topic,  did anyone ask Intikam how come we get rain at night..  If rain is caused by the sun melting the firmament,  it couldn't ever rain at night.  :)



I think Intikam got mad because he received a short ban.  After all of his research, study, and analysis, us ungrateful fellow FE'ers banned him for his antisemitic ramblings, so he took his ball and went home.

Īntikam is peddling his usual drivel at an other Flat Earth forum