Are round earthers simply examples of the Dunning Kruger effect, or just wrong?

You can tell if someone is banned anyway by trying to search their name in the memberlist.

Even easier, just look here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86187.30#lastPost

because he's (NSS) usually getting banned, no?


well i just wanted to see snomo's response to the balls of water.
i find it so funny on the same level as skeppy's inability to draw a circle.
it's not even an abstract conspiratory like nasa or concepts liek the sun or gravity.
it's freaking balls and circles!

So, snomo, siince youre back
 - in the vomit comet, what shape did water balls make when in relative zero-g free fall?
Never got confirmation from you.

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 02, 2021, 10:52:14 AM

because he's (NSS) usually getting banned, no?


well i just wanted to see snomo's response to the balls of water.
i find it so funny on the same level as skeppy's inability to draw a circle.
it's not even an abstract conspiratory like nasa or concepts liek the sun or gravity.
it's freaking balls and circles!

So, snomo, siince youre back
 - in the vomit comet, what shape did water balls make when in relative zero-g free fall?
Never got confirmation from you.

Yes, you did, you just chose to ignore it. They very plainly elongated immediately.

I have more manners than to bump a thread, particularly when the only contents of a post is mindless repitition.

one example of elongation due to some extra velocity added?
give me a time stamp.


here's one.
1:12


"spherical"
so you are so very clearly wrong.






it was bumped because you ran off for a month, living life i assume vs fighting randos on the internet, only to come back still as wrong as before.
good for you.
thanks for coming back.

one example of elongation due to some extra velocity added?
give me a time stamp.


here's one.
1:12


"spherical"
so you are so very clearly wrong.

Actually watch what you're linking. It is clearly elongating.

it was bumped because you ran off for a month, living life i assume vs fighting randos on the internet, only to come back still as wrong as before.
good for you.
thanks for coming back.

What? I have better things to do with my life. My existence does not revolve around you or an internet forum, especially not one filled with people of your ilk who actively enjoy lying and antagonizing. Sorry but you aren't that important. No, I'm not going to be logging in every day or even week. I have a life.

oh
good for you then
have a good life.
i love being talked down by someone who is...also here....
you must have a life better than mine.
clearly... becuase you're living it, and not ...here.
i bet you and heiwa must shop at the same coffee place.



also
thanks for not providing the time stamp, like the one i did, where it shows balls, and him saying sphere.
who's the lying troll now?
you.
you are.

and if you cared to provide a clip or photo the water would show that, it's merely elongating due to extra velocity and forces on it which also doesn't prove your point.

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 21, 2021, 10:24:31 AM

one example of elongation due to some extra velocity added?
give me a time stamp.


here's one.
1:12


"spherical"
so you are so very clearly wrong.

Actually watch what you're linking. It is clearly elongating.

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 21, 2021, 10:24:31 AM

it was bumped because you ran off for a month, living life i assume vs fighting randos on the internet, only to come back still as wrong as before.
good for you.
thanks for coming back.

What? I have better things to do with my life. My existence does not revolve around you or an internet forum, especially not one filled with people of your ilk who actively enjoy lying and antagonizing. Sorry but you aren't that important. No, I'm not going to be logging in every day or even week. I have a life.

The point you are deliberately missing is water droplets if left at peace with no external force being applied will take the form of a sphere. The arguments presented to you last time you lost this argument still hold good. Why are you so determined to be proved wrong again?

I have more manners than to bump a thread, particularly when the only contents of a post is mindless repitition.

Yet not more manners to continually lie about what people say and REers in general, and then running away when you can't justify your lies?

I wouldn't call that good manners.

If you didn't want it to be mindless repetition, you could try to actually address what has been said, such as by admitting you were making assumptions and were a great example of what you were describing, and then trying to move on from that.

why every other planet round tho? Y'all also apart of the "gravity is a myth society" xqcT

why every other planet round tho? Y'all also apart of the "gravity is a myth society" xqcT

Only the ones we have observed directly. The exo planets we have detected, their shapes are only assumed round.

Quote from: DaBaby282 on June 21, 2021, 07:40:07 PM

why every other planet round tho? Y'all also apart of the "gravity is a myth society" xqcT

Only the ones we have observed directly. The exo planets we have detected, their shapes are only assumed round.

i mean they are assumed round cause of gravity... so like we just breaking a law of physics by being flat? We special here on earth or what?

Quote from: Shifter on June 21, 2021, 07:43:59 PM

Quote from: DaBaby282 on June 21, 2021, 07:40:07 PM

why every other planet round tho? Y'all also apart of the "gravity is a myth society" xqcT

Only the ones we have observed directly. The exo planets we have detected, their shapes are only assumed round.

i mean they are assumed round cause of gravity... so like we just breaking a law of physics by being flat? We special here on earth or what?

Gravity is a theory - not enough information or understanding is known about it yet to be a law

Gravity is a theory - not enough information or understanding is known about it yet to be a law

Wrong. Not having enough knowledge about its nature doesn't mean we cannot know how it works. Therefore, a law can be derived. As long as this law matches with the observations and allows for reliable predictions the law is valid.

Quote from: DaBaby282 on June 21, 2021, 07:49:53 PM

Quote from: Shifter on June 21, 2021, 07:43:59 PM

Quote from: DaBaby282 on June 21, 2021, 07:40:07 PM

why every other planet round tho? Y'all also apart of the "gravity is a myth society" xqcT

Only the ones we have observed directly. The exo planets we have detected, their shapes are only assumed round.

i mean they are assumed round cause of gravity... so like we just breaking a law of physics by being flat? We special here on earth or what?

Gravity is a theory - not enough information or understanding is known about it yet to be a law

That's not entirely correct.  Newton's Laws of Motion are inclusive of the force known as gravity.  We're still peeling the layers of the onion, so to speak, regarding the nuances of how matter curves space time on a quantum level.  However, how gravity works outside of the quantum realm is established.  Further, within the scientific community theories don't dream someday of becoming laws.  Laws are axiomatic or nearly so; they are largely self-evident; think Ohm's Law as an example.  Theories are more complex and require deeper analysis, but can be just as assertive as a "law"; an example would be Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. 

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 19, 2021, 03:50:35 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 02, 2021, 10:52:14 AM

because he's (NSS) usually getting banned, no?


well i just wanted to see snomo's response to the balls of water.
i find it so funny on the same level as skeppy's inability to draw a circle.
it's not even an abstract conspiratory like nasa or concepts liek the sun or gravity.
it's freaking balls and circles!

So, snomo, siince youre back
 - in the vomit comet, what shape did water balls make when in relative zero-g free fall?
Never got confirmation from you.

Yes, you did, you just chose to ignore it. They very plainly elongated immediately.

I have more manners than to bump a thread, particularly when the only contents of a post is mindless repitition.

While it’s true I have been labouring a point, you are the one engaged in mindless repetition. Water droplets are spherical if left to their own devices regardless of your mindless desire to have then take up some other shape. It’s what they do.
Looks like the main mindless action is all yours. Let’s remember you were the one who said human history goes back no more than 1000 years! Funny I’m just back from a trip where I visited an excavation of an ancient building complex that is more than 5000 years old! You were also the one who claims to have measured the heights of the two invisible and undetectable domes you claim exist. You then go on to claim that the aether, another invisible and undetectable phenomenon is responsible for directing both the earth and all the stars! Your mind has indeed been busy.

Gravity is a theory - not enough information or understanding is known about it yet to be a law

Gravity itself is a physical phenomenon.
The theory of gravity/gravitation / general relativity are theories.
The universal law of gravitation is a law.
Scientific theories are never elevated to laws, they are fundamentally distinct things.

Sadly, there is a lot of conflation between the two (laws and theories) which occurs largely due to miseducation and the scientific illiteracy it causes.

Scientific law is not about mathematical formulation, nor causation of any kind.  Scientific law is only about what is; it is bore, defined, and comprised of rigorous and repeated measurement alone (no theory).

The law of gravity is ancient, 1000’s of years old, and remains today largely unchanged. What goes up, must come down.

It could be argued that W=mg is a mathematical description (or part of it, at least) of the aforementioned law, but it involves two theoretical entities (bore of theory) which do not belong in scientific law.  As I said, there is a lot of conflation and theory tends to creep into mathematical formulation of natural laws when it is expressly forbidden to do so (by the definition of scientific/natural law).

Sadly, there is a lot of conflation between the two (laws and theories) which occurs largely due to miseducation and the scientific illiteracy it causes.

Scientific law is not about mathematical formulation, nor causation of any kind.  Scientific law is only about what is; it is bore, defined, and comprised of rigorous and repeated measurement alone (no theory).

The law of gravity is ancient, 1000’s of years old, and remains today largely unchanged. What goes up, must come down.

It could be argued that W=mg is a mathematical description (or part of it, at least) of the aforementioned law, but it involves two theoretical entities (bore of theory) which do not belong in scientific law.  As I said, there is a lot of conflation and theory tends to creep into mathematical formulation of natural laws when it is expressly forbidden to do so (by the definition of scientific/natural law).

By “miseducation”, you mean the stuff that everyone learns that you personally disagree with?

Sadly, there is a lot of conflation between the two (laws and theories) which occurs largely due to miseducation and the scientific illiteracy it causes.

Including by you. Stop trying to miseducate people.

Scientific law is only about what is; it is bore, defined, and comprised of rigorous and repeated measurement alone (no theory).

Typically as defined by a mathematical relationship, and which forms part of a theory.

The law of gravity is ancient, 1000’s of years old, and remains today largely unchanged. What goes up, must come down.

Except that isn't the law of gravity at all, and is wrong/only applicable in limited circumstances.
The law of gravity is fairly knew, and there are actually a few.

It could be argued that W=mg is a mathematical description (or part of it, at least) of the aforementioned law, but it involves two theoretical entities

No it doesn't.
All three quantities in that equation are quite real and measurable.
Weight is measurable as a force applied to any thing (such as a scale) the object is sitting on.
Acceleration is measurable, including that due to gravity. Especially if you measure the acceleration in a vacuum.
Mass is measurable, in several ways.

So no, there are no theoretical entities in that equation, they are all quite real.
You wanting to pretend everything is just magical weight will not change reality.
You have had it explained to you why it is not just weight, which you have just continually fled from or ignored.
Ignoring it wont make it go away.

But even then, there is no requirement for a scientific law to not use theoretical concepts.

A law provides a description of what happens, often a mathematical relationship and I'm yet to find a single law that cant be expressed by math.
A theory explains why.

A law provides a description of what happens, often a mathematical relationship and I'm yet to find a single law that cant be expressed by math.

Poe’s law?

The point you are deliberately missing is water droplets if left at peace with no external force being applied will take the form of a sphere. The arguments presented to you last time you lost this argument still hold good. Why are you so determined to be proved wrong again?

If there's no external force then there are no water droplets, at all. No force, no nothing.

If there's no external force then there are no water droplets, at all. No force, no nothing.

You might want to go look up the definitions of those basic words.
Why should no external force mean no water droplet?

And no, bringing in your fantasy wont help.

The law of gravity is ancient, 1000’s of years old, and remains today largely unchanged. What goes up, must come down.

You think that Einstein's theories of relativity and spacetime are "largely unchanged" from the simple observation that rocks fall when you drop them from thousands of years ago? That's so absurd it's laughable and just shows you don't truly understand even the basics of what science understands of gravity (or gravitation since you love to use that word).

Yes, cavemen knew E=mc² and understood time dilation and haven't really learned much since then. 

guys
it's in the name - drop-let.
if it's not being dropped, pulled-pushed downwards, it's not a let.
obviously.

guys
it's in the name - drop-let.
if it's not being dropped, pulled-pushed downwards, it's not a let.
obviously.

I can get behind that.

Quote from: Timeisup on June 21, 2021, 01:05:00 PM

The point you are deliberately missing is water droplets if left at peace with no external force being applied will take the form of a sphere. The arguments presented to you last time you lost this argument still hold good. Why are you so determined to be proved wrong again?

If there's no external force then there are no water droplets, at all. No force, no nothing.

No nothing....... So something

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 24, 2021, 12:08:02 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on June 21, 2021, 01:05:00 PM

The point you are deliberately missing is water droplets if left at peace with no external force being applied will take the form of a sphere. The arguments presented to you last time you lost this argument still hold good. Why are you so determined to be proved wrong again?

If there's no external force then there are no water droplets, at all. No force, no nothing.

No nothing....... So something

There's always a force. Be it the TON618 black hole or a grain of sand at the far reaches of the universe. Everything is attracted to everything, everywhere

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on June 24, 2021, 10:43:08 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 24, 2021, 12:08:02 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on June 21, 2021, 01:05:00 PM

The point you are deliberately missing is water droplets if left at peace with no external force being applied will take the form of a sphere. The arguments presented to you last time you lost this argument still hold good. Why are you so determined to be proved wrong again?

If there's no external force then there are no water droplets, at all. No force, no nothing.

No nothing....... So something

There's always a force. Be it the TON618 black hole or a grain of sand at the far reaches of the universe. Everything is attracted to everything, everywhere

Almost.  Anything in the VISIBLE universe affects us.  If something is so far away that the expansion of the universe prevents light from it reaching us, then it doesn't affect us at all, gravitationally or in any other way.

But for anything we can SEE, it certainly has a pull, even if it's so small we need lots of zeros to represent it.

Quote from: Timeisup on June 21, 2021, 01:05:00 PM

The point you are deliberately missing is water droplets if left at peace with no external force being applied will take the form of a sphere. The arguments presented to you last time you lost this argument still hold good. Why are you so determined to be proved wrong again?

If there's no external force then there are no water droplets, at all. No force, no nothing.

Spray water on a surface in an enclosed space stand back and observe and don’t touch.
The droplets irrespective of what you believe if left to their own devices, as frankly they don’t care, will take on a spherical form cause thats what they do.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on June 24, 2021, 10:43:08 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 24, 2021, 12:08:02 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on June 21, 2021, 01:05:00 PM

The point you are deliberately missing is water droplets if left at peace with no external force being applied will take the form of a sphere. The arguments presented to you last time you lost this argument still hold good. Why are you so determined to be proved wrong again?

If there's no external force then there are no water droplets, at all. No force, no nothing.

No nothing....... So something

There's always a force. Be it the TON618 black hole or a grain of sand at the far reaches of the universe. Everything is attracted to everything, everywhere

How do you know that?