How can you dismiss all the space footage?

And now that I have had some time, I decided to do some simple simulations in PoV-Ray.

This is what a perfectly smooth flat surface would look like:

Notice it is just a circle as the reflection.

A large round surface would look like this:

Basically the same.

A small round surface would look like this:

Where now the circle appears squashed and distorted.

In all cases, this smooth surface provides a small reflection, at most slightly shrunk.

This is what happens when you add ripples to the surface:


The ripples are what make the image spread out, not the surface being flat.


If you are interested, this is the code that was used, with various parts commented out to get different effects, and with radius set to either 63.71 or 6371.

#version 3.7;
global_settings{ assumed_gamma 1.0 }
#include "colors.inc"
#include "textures.inc"
#include "metals.inc"

//camera
camera {
    angle 45
    location  <0.0 , 1.0 ,-3.0>
    right     x*image_width/image_height
    look_at   <0.0 , 1.0 , 0.0>
}

//sun
light_source{<1500,2500,-2500> color White}

//Moon
sphere{ <0,500,4000>, 200
    texture{
        pigment{ color White*0.9 }
        normal { bumps 1.5 scale 20}
        finish { ambient 0.8 diffuse 0.2 phong 1 }
    }
}

#declare fearth = plane{ <0,1,0>, 0
    texture{
        Polished_Chrome
        //normal { crackle 0.2 scale <1,2,1> turbulence 4 }
        finish { reflection 1.0 }
    }
}
     
#declare rad=63.71;
#declare rearth = sphere{ <0,-rad,0>, rad
    texture{
        Polished_Chrome
        normal { crackle 0.2 scale <1,2,1> turbulence 4 }
        finish { reflection 1.0 }
    }
}

//object {fearth}
object {rearth}


As for reflection i wouls recommend walking at bridge when its raining. You see same thing. But think for a Moment. The waves will have more "curvature" than actual Earths curvature over few Km straight reflection is visible.

You aren't really thinking. Like a computer that is programmed with the wrong information, garbage in garbage out is in full effect.

You mean this?


Have you ever experienced real curvature in the sea? That is, on a completely still calm day, if curvature were a real thing, for every mile at sea, you ought to be climbing an 8 inch mound of water. Ain't no such thing, though.

You look at random stuff like a bridge obscuring view at its peak, and decide it means something. If as a very young kid, I convinced you that left was right and red was green, another teacher would have to work on you, or you would be messed up. In the same way, if all of your teachers told you RE nonsense, you'd increasingly be resistant to people telling you otherwise.

You are still under the illusion that I somehow haven't been educated. Dude, went to primary school. Went to high school, went to community college, went to college, took a few extra courses in viticulture and marketing. Had a different education as a result of the extra courses and the pieces together stuff, but very definitely learned everything you did.

The difference is that outside of college, I gradually learned my "professors" were full of shit. They learned the material from other teachers without checking the material, or in some cases they were propagandists. In still other cases, the material was right only for certain circumstances, like the grammar teacher who corrects for rules but never bothers to tell you that certain situations the rule isn't valid.       



Even if we accept that gravity is a thing, this guy explains situations where it outright does not work. They talk about how on a black hole situation, it just doesn't work, and for weak things like between two people, we don't know whether it's right or wrong. Hardly a law, hardly a universalized force.

Garbage in, garbage out. If you are told nonsense as a child, it is or framework for solving problems as an adult. Unless, like me, you ditched this framework when it no longer suited a reasonable purpose.

You aren't really thinking. Like a computer that is programmed with the wrong information, garbage in garbage out is in full effect.

You are projecting yet again.

Have you ever experienced real curvature in the sea?

Yes.
I have seen the horizon.
I have seen how this curved water obscures the bottom of distant vessels.
I have seen how when I get higher, I can see further around the curve.
I have seen how as I move around on that surface, the portion I can see moves with them.

These all match what is expected for a curved surface.

for every mile at sea, you ought to be climbing an 8 inch mound of water.

No, you shouldn't.
That is just another pathetic FE lie, no better than those claiming planes need to constantly descend.
You aren't climbing or descending. You are remaining level.

You look at random stuff like a bridge obscuring view at its peak, and decide it means something.

Yes, it shows what curvature does.
Just like what happens in reality.
We can also look at what surfaces do, and see they don't magically block the view.

But that bridge was meant to show the stupidity of your claim regarding reflections.

You are still under the illusion that I somehow haven't been educated.

No, you have clearly rejected that education and any semblance of intelligence that comes with it.

The difference is that outside of college, I gradually learned my "professors" were full of shit.

You should have put "learned" in quotes.
As you clearly didn't actually learn that, you just fooled yourself into thinking that, and instead chose to reject reality and spout pure BS as you do all the time.

Even if we accept that gravity is a thing, this guy explains situations where it outright does not work. They talk about how on a black hole situation, it just doesn't work, and for weak things like between two people, we don't know whether it's right or wrong. Hardly a law, hardly a universalized force.

You mean they point out that in certain situations approximations break down and in some situations the effect is negligible and unmeasurable.
That isn't saying it is wrong.
That isn't saying your blatant lies about reality are true.

Quote

As for reflection i wouls recommend walking at bridge when its raining. You see same thing. But think for a Moment. The waves will have more "curvature" than actual Earths curvature over few Km straight reflection is visible.

You aren't really thinking. Like a computer that is programmed with the wrong information, garbage in garbage out is in full effect.

You mean this?


Have you ever experienced real curvature in the sea? That is, on a completely still calm day, if curvature were a real thing, for every mile at sea, you ought to be climbing an 8 inch mound of water. Ain't no such thing, though.

You look at random stuff like a bridge obscuring view at its peak, and decide it means something. If as a very young kid, I convinced you that left was right and red was green, another teacher would have to work on you, or you would be messed up. In the same way, if all of your teachers told you RE nonsense, you'd increasingly be resistant to people telling you otherwise.

You are still under the illusion that I somehow haven't been educated. Dude, went to primary school. Went to high school, went to community college, went to college, took a few extra courses in viticulture and marketing. Had a different education as a result of the extra courses and the pieces together stuff, but very definitely learned everything you did.

The difference is that outside of college, I gradually learned my "professors" were full of shit. They learned the material from other teachers without checking the material, or in some cases they were propagandists. In still other cases, the material was right only for certain circumstances, like the grammar teacher who corrects for rules but never bothers to tell you that certain situations the rule isn't valid.       



Even if we accept that gravity is a thing, this guy explains situations where it outright does not work. They talk about how on a black hole situation, it just doesn't work, and for weak things like between two people, we don't know whether it's right or wrong. Hardly a law, hardly a universalized force.

Garbage in, garbage out. If you are told nonsense as a child, it is or framework for solving problems as an adult. Unless, like me, you ditched this framework when it no longer suited a reasonable purpose.

Garbage in garbage out gave you this incofrect notion of how a globe works and where the center of circles are.

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 27, 2024, 04:55:03 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 21, 2024, 08:32:02 PM

Quote from: EarthIsRotund link=topic=92285.msg2419614#m

Perfect

Bulma agrees or not?

Quote

so how do you explain 12 000 km visibility? You flatties jump and scream when you manage to get Mountain to Mountain 500 km "impossible shot"?

How do you explain what now?

The longest confirmed line of sight is 275 miles. Well beyond where we are supposed to have curvature, yet all vision eventually ends.
https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/66661-longest-line-of-sight-on-earth

If you want to ask me how I explain something, shouldn't you get something real?

Quote

Round Earthers: shows real pictures [that is supposedly fake] of earth taken by satellites and spacecrafts in the 21st century AD

Flat Earthers: shows Adobe Illustrator images of flat earth made by flat earthers according to models given by high prophets in 69 century BC

Actually, your pictures are done by professional artists. The difference is that our artists are amateurs, and draw what they know, while your artists are contracted by government to keep up an illusion.

On the topic of Adobe Stock art.

Quote

Hey bulmabriefs144, point to the four corners of the earth Isaiah was referring to?

He means the edges. East, west, north, and south as far as you can go.

But strictly speaking, that's not right.


North = towards the center
West/East = clockwise and counterclockwise
South = away from center

As for Revelation, I have no comment.

Quote

Fleeing from the subject yet again.
Yes, being TOSSED around kills you.

So then, you admit that Earth can't rotate 1000+ mph and orbit 60,000+ mph?

I fled from nothing.

But you walked into that.

Have you completely given up on answering my questions about the Pendulum?

Have you ever experienced real curvature in the sea?

Yes.  I was in the navy and went to the beach quite often.  Tides too.

Watched boats go out to sea over the horizon blocked bottom up.  To navigation, targeting, and estimating the distance of ships. 

From a 1943 blue jackets manual. It’s the introductory guide / survival manual for entering the navy.



Another page from the blue jackets manual from 1943



Close up of a specific passage.

You look at random stuff

And yet I can cite guides that give a quick and fairly accurate estimate on distance and how far away a ship is based on its position on the horizon, or over the horizon.


Or these..

Then why are these accurate for Star gazing







Simple dial atlases for the norther and southern hemispheres.  Kills flat earth.

Atlases that accurate and practically help find constellations month by month, hour by hour.  The constellations are like a roads map that helps a person locate specific stars, star groups, nebulas, where the planets of our solar system are in relation to the night sky, and distant galaxies.


The simple dial star atlas for the southern hemisphere is practical to, accurate showing where something like the southern cross is from hour to hour. It would be meaningless and not usable if the east was flat.  It would not be a standard for star gazers and amateur astronomers.

Flat earth is dead. 

Have you completely given up on answering my questions about the Pendulum?

Standard modus operandi of bulmabriefs144.  Or flat earthers in general.  When it gets obvious an aspect of bulmabriefs144 world model is useless and junk science, time to run to another of bulmabriefs144’s lies.  Lay down flack and change the subject. 

Garbage in, garbage out.

Like why a celestial South Pole works on a spherical earth and is meaningless on a flat earth for what is actually witnessed in the night sky. 

Quote

As for reflection i wouls recommend walking at bridge when its raining. You see same thing. But think for a Moment. The waves will have more "curvature" than actual Earths curvature over few Km straight reflection is visible.

You aren't really thinking. Like a computer that is programmed with the wrong information, garbage in garbage out is in full effect.

You mean this?


Have you ever experienced real curvature in the sea? That is, on a completely still calm day, if curvature were a real thing, for every mile at sea, you ought to be climbing an 8 inch mound of water. Ain't no such thing, though.

You look at random stuff like a bridge obscuring view at its peak, and decide it means something. If as a very young kid, I convinced you that left was right and red was green, another teacher would have to work on you, or you would be messed up. In the same way, if all of your teachers told you RE nonsense, you'd increasingly be resistant to people telling you otherwise.

You are still under the illusion that I somehow haven't been educated. Dude, went to primary school. Went to high school, went to community college, went to college, took a few extra courses in viticulture and marketing. Had a different education as a result of the extra courses and the pieces together stuff, but very definitely learned everything you did.

The difference is that outside of college, I gradually learned my "professors" were full of shit. They learned the material from other teachers without checking the material, or in some cases they were propagandists. In still other cases, the material was right only for certain circumstances, like the grammar teacher who corrects for rules but never bothers to tell you that certain situations the rule isn't valid.       



Even if we accept that gravity is a thing, this guy explains situations where it outright does not work. They talk about how on a black hole situation, it just doesn't work, and for weak things like between two people, we don't know whether it's right or wrong. Hardly a law, hardly a universalized force.

Garbage in, garbage out. If you are told nonsense as a child, it is or framework for solving problems as an adult. Unless, like me, you ditched this framework when it no longer suited a reasonable purpose.

you wouldnt be climbing anything since its always 90 relative to zenith. I actually did my own curvature experiment, I can download pics form my phone if you want

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 28, 2024, 06:37:58 PM

Have you ever experienced real curvature in the sea?

Yes.  I was in the navy and went to the beach quite often.  Tides too.

Watched boats go out to sea over the horizon blocked bottom up.  To navigation, targeting, and estimating the distance of ships. 

From a 1943 blue jackets manual. It’s the introductory guide / survival manual for entering the navy.



Another page from the blue jackets manual from 1943



Close up of a specific passage.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 28, 2024, 06:37:58 PM

You look at random stuff

And yet I can cite guides that give a quick and fairly accurate estimate on distance and how far away a ship is based on its position on the horizon, or over the horizon.


Or these..

Then why are these accurate for Star gazing







Simple dial atlases for the norther and southern hemispheres.  Kills flat earth.

Atlases that accurate and practically help find constellations month by month, hour by hour.  The constellations are like a roads map that helps a person locate specific stars, star groups, nebulas, where the planets of our solar system are in relation to the night sky, and distant galaxies.


The simple dial star atlas for the southern hemisphere is practical to, accurate showing where something like the southern cross is from hour to hour. It would be meaningless and not usable if the east was flat.  It would not be a standard for star gazers and amateur astronomers.

Flat earth is dead.

I thought globe was invented in 50s by Rockashilds

I thought globe was invented in 50s by Rockashilds

I thought it was NASA and its elite team of ninja astrophysicists to guard the ice wall? 

Quote

As for reflection i wouls recommend walking at bridge when its raining. You see same thing. But think for a Moment. The waves will have more "curvature" than actual Earths curvature over few Km straight reflection is visible.

You aren't really thinking. Like a computer that is programmed with the wrong information, garbage in garbage out is in full effect.

You mean this?


Have you ever experienced real curvature in the sea? That is, on a completely still calm day, if curvature were a real thing, for every mile at sea, you ought to be climbing an 8 inch mound of water. Ain't no such thing, though.

You look at random stuff like a bridge obscuring view at its peak, and decide it means something. If as a very young kid, I convinced you that left was right and red was green, another teacher would have to work on you, or you would be messed up. In the same way, if all of your teachers told you RE nonsense, you'd increasingly be resistant to people telling you otherwise.

You are still under the illusion that I somehow haven't been educated. Dude, went to primary school. Went to high school, went to community college, went to college, took a few extra courses in viticulture and marketing. Had a different education as a result of the extra courses and the pieces together stuff, but very definitely learned everything you did.

The difference is that outside of college, I gradually learned my "professors" were full of shit. They learned the material from other teachers without checking the material, or in some cases they were propagandists. In still other cases, the material was right only for certain circumstances, like the grammar teacher who corrects for rules but never bothers to tell you that certain situations the rule isn't valid.       



Even if we accept that gravity is a thing, this guy explains situations where it outright does not work. They talk about how on a black hole situation, it just doesn't work, and for weak things like between two people, we don't know whether it's right or wrong. Hardly a law, hardly a universalized force.

Garbage in, garbage out. If you are told nonsense as a child, it is or framework for solving problems as an adult. Unless, like me, you ditched this framework when it no longer suited a reasonable purpose.

Bul, you not being highly educated is no illusion. Only you know what subjects you undertook in high school and college, but none of them appear to have been science based or improved your ability to think critically.

You haven't undertaken university level education like I have, Jack Black has, and most of the other globers here have. So on the education front, yours is less than ours. It's a proven fact that people less educated are more susceptible to being sucked in by misinformation and are more gullible to scams like the flat earth movement.

I'm not trying to make you feel inadequate to be participating in these debates, but your education level is something you could improve.

I have experienced real curvature out at sea. Just get in a boat and start heading out from shore. Around the 5km mark, you will notice the buildings and landscape in general at the shoreline disappearing from the bottom up. That is experiencing curvature at sea.

Have you abandoned your flat earth proof being the world record for the longest line of sight here on Earth?

Belittle and discredit. That's how the so-called modern world avoids dealing with people who threaten the orthodoxy.

Sorry guy.
1. Not homeschooled by fundamentalists.
2. Did not start out believing in flat Earth, came to that conclusion years after college.
3. Did not have some strange gap in my science education.
4. Was not brainwashed by some cult.
5. Not stupid or insane (mostly anyway, I do have ADD and social issues).

2000 years ago, I'd be another person nailed to a cross or stoned to death. Now you just try to convince me I belong in an institution. Sorry, you belong in an institution, like most of those liberal now applying for welfare. Prior to about the 70s or 80s, such places were filled, then the powers that be decided it was better for the insane to be homeless.

I took history and minored in horticulture (for those who don't know, that's a science minor). Switched minors at organic chemistry (the subject that does in a great deal of would-be students in science). I have no interest in genetic engineering or in making drugs chemicals for plants, I wanted to study plants themselves, and got fed up with not learning all that much about the subject itself.

You haven't undertaken university level education like I have...

Let me stop you there.

From my experience, university students dwell on their education, never realizing that what they actually experience is indoctrination. Oh yes, I am certain university-level work seems hard. This is because the professors hard core are trying to brainwash students.

Education is nothing to boast about. I notice you aren't boasting about your knowledge. You see, knowledge is something that requires initiative. Actually going out and looking things up yourself. Is it something you do? No, not from my observation. If you weren't taught it in the past by your esteemed professors in a lecture, you are arrogant to the point of no new knowledge penetrating those thick skulls of yours.
Is Higher Education Making Students Dumb and Dumber?
Turns out Harvard Students Aren't That Smart After All
(Wherein in says the biggest qualifier for universities like Harvard is not merit, but having parents who went or deep pockets)
Why University Makes People Stupid

No, I didn't get university education. But from my 20s when I graduated college to today, I have not stopped learning. I read papers, I study at libraries, and I do independent research. Your education is shit. I've known it was shit by the fact that rather than debating properly, you guys pull education rank on me (ask an employer whether they value degrees), and because I struck by how often I have to repeat the same damned points with virtually zero comprehension.

All you learned from university was how to be woke Marxists, how to utterly fail at basic understanding of what I'm saying, and how to parrot dumbassed mutterings while you struggle to pay off debts while you feel superior about nothing.

Have you abandoned your flat earth proof being the world record for the longest line of sight here on Earth?

Because your fine universary degree left you with the inability to listen (I have ADHD, and I still remember what you have said before), you failed to notice that I have said that light and other wavelengths have a limit whereafter they tend to scatter. You have failed to notice that I already mentioned this distance. You have failed to notice that I've mentioned that height increases distance of sight, that angles cause the capping of distance, and that at ground level, sight line should be only about 3 to 11 miles, but you can actually see across the bay to Chicago

If you actually got over yourself and your so-called education, and adopted the barest level of humility needed to learn things, you'd remember that I said all of this. But since you think university education is a silver bullet to replace common sense, this is the latest in a number of times that I've had to repeat one or more of these points, and I have never at any point said that either line of sight or light wavelengths continue forever.

But I remember you guys have.

I said repeatedly that they operate as though under a parabola in terms of light range, angle, etc. Much like lifting a giant umbrella from the ground to quite a distance above. Jack Black with his university education (or was it Data? I don't care about either of you enough to keep you straight) suggested flipping the parabola, completely missing the point.
That's right, even though I cannot tell you people apart (you all start to run together), I know that I've heard similar to this said. "If the Earth is flat, then you should be able to see the sun on the other side of the Earth."



If light really continued like you say...

Why is the light from lightbulb A not brightening lightbulb B? The energy ought to transfer much like a pool ball hitting another pool ball.


This extra energy has been converted from electrical energy to light energy, so no powering the bulb, but the light ought to be just as bright. But of course, it is not. Because what you have been told about electromagnetic wavelengths is garbage.

gullible to scams like the flat earth movement

RE is a scam that costed the taxpayer...

Since its inception the United States has spent nearly US$650 billion (in nominal dollars) on NASA

$650 billion since it started. FE by contrast has cost me nothing.

In fact, halting all space exploration should save taxpayers $24 billion a year, and since every state in the union spends on NASA, this is a massive tax cut.

"Boost the economics," my ass. More like contribute to public poverty.

Explain to me what a scam that costs the conned person nothing has in terms of purpose?
You see, I am a pragmatist. If something costs me something that I don't want to pay, I don't use it.

You fall for these scams, and you project your gullibility.

I see you are now just entirely fleeing from your previous arguments and resorting to pathetic insults and more BS.

Belittle and discredit.

That does seem to be your status quoe.
Happy to dismiss anyone who calls out your BS as a shill, and ignore the points they make.

But we can't forget your other big tactics, deflect and flee like the lying coward you are.

5. Not stupid or insane (mostly anyway, I do have ADD and social issues).

And the only way this is possible is if you are knowingly lying to everyone here.
Otherwise, your actions show the opposite.

From my experience, university students dwell on their education, never realizing that what they actually experience is indoctrination.

You mean from your experience, they realise you are spouting pure BS, and you don't like that so pretend they are indoctrinated to dismiss them.

Education is nothing to boast about. I notice you aren't boasting about your knowledge.

Education provides knowledge.
Something you clearly lack.

But from my 20s when I graduated college to today, I have not stopped learning.

Learning how to lie to people?
Learning how to be a dishonest POS?

I struck by how often I have to repeat the same damned points with virtually zero comprehension.

You mean how often you repeat the same points, only to flee from the refutation of them, just to bring up the same refuted BS later?

You have failed to notice that I've mentioned that height increases distance of sight

The problem is you have absolutely no justification for it.

I said repeatedly that they operate as though under a parabola in terms of light range, angle, etc.

And the question is WHY?
What magic causes this?
The other big question is why does this cause objects to magically vanish from the bottom up?
How does this allow us to see things above the horizon so much further away?
Your parabola simply doesn't work.
You have had this explained to you repeatedly. Yet you ignore it.
You have no response, so you flee by either entirely leaving the thread, or changing topic.

Conversely, the RE model does work to explain it.

Jack Black with his university education (or was it Data? I don't care about either of you enough to keep you straight) suggested flipping the parabola, completely missing the point.

Quite the opposite.
I suggested flipping the parabola, because that would be a much better match for reality.
By flipping the parabola, you have objects disappear from the bottom up, just like in reality. You also have objects much higher being able to be seen from much further away.
It still doesn't work entirely, but it works a lot better than your delusional BS.

If light really continued like you say...
Why is the light from lightbulb A not brightening lightbulb B?

We can see lightbulb B, so it clearly is.
What it can't do is heat up bulb B enough for it to glow.

The energy ought to transfer much like a pool ball hitting another pool ball.

Why?
This is yet another example of you being entirely incapable of defending your dishonest BS, so you just invent a strawman to attack.

but the light ought to be just as bright.

Why?
Stop just asserting pure BS, and try explaining it.

RE is a scam that costed the taxpayer...

RE is based upon reality, and is a model which actually works to describe reality.
But for the most part, it does nothing to the taxpayer.
NASA is based upon exploring space, not RE.

But if you want to include NASA, it has resulted in plenty of technology, including the camera in your phone.

In fact, halting all space exploration should save taxpayers $24 billion a year, and since every state in the union spends on NASA, this is a massive tax cut.

Or they just reallocate it to elsewhere.
But why not express it more honestly as a fraction of the US budget, 0.48%.
So that "massive tax cut" would be 0.48%.

Does that really sound massive?
If you paid $10 000 in tax, that would be $48.

Explain to me what a scam that costs the conned person nothing has in terms of purpose?

How much time have you put into it?
How many stupid FE videos have you watched, and watched the ads on, paying them money based upon your time?
But as well as that, you are advertising for them, to try get more fools to join in and do stupid things like buy their books, or get more ad revenue for their crappy videos.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense

A Chewbacca Defense is a way of "winning" a debate through methods other than logic and reasoned argument. The essence of it is that if you get your opponent to give up, then you "win".

The False Dichotomy: If the other side is wrong about anything, no matter how irrelevant, they're wrong about everything — and you're right about everything.
The Ad Hominem: If you can do anything to make the other side look bad, you win. This is usually accomplished by misrepresenting their side entirely. Extra effective if you can compare them to Hitler.
The Red Herring: If you can get your opponent to talk about something other than the key points, you win. It can be easily combined with the Ad Hominem attack by accusing your opponent of supporting or opposing something totally irrelevant to the argument, in such a way that they have to address it.
Quality by Popular Vote: If you can show that your side is the more popular argument, you win, regardless of whether your side is the correct argument.
The Broken Record: If you repeat the same point over and over again, you win — because obviously, the other side didn't address it if you won't shut up about it. Extra effective if you keep repeating a catchy soundbite or buzzword.
The "Gish Gallop": Hit your opponent with as many arguments as you can in as short a timespan as you can. If they don't address every single one to your satisfaction, you win. And it's practically impossible for them to do that because they have no time to prepare and are not going to pay attention to everything you're vomiting out there.

This is what you learned at university. Not how to employ real logic or reason, but a number of fallacies to employ instead of logic and reason. The Gish Gallop is particularly used, as FAS has a text limit after which I simply cannot post without a 503 error. "Well what do you think of my nine points over here?" I think that I have answered them in the past, will probably think for new answers, and that you probably aren't listening to my answers in the first place.

Even accusing your opponent of using a Chewbacca Defense is itself a form of Chewbacca Defense. This means it's bad form to make such an accusation, which in turn leads to what's known as "Chewbacca's Dilemma" — first, you can't defend yourself from an actual Chewbacca Defense, and second, no matter how intelligently and clearly you make your point, certain opponents will always perceive your argument as a Chewbacca Defense.

:giggles:

So are you hoping that if you go on repeating the same crap over and over again, that I'll believe you? Because it's not right, today, tomorrow, or ten years from now.

How can I dismiss all space footage? Because I know better. Simple as that.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense

Telling us what you are doing are you?

Not how to employ real logic or reason, but a number of fallacies to employ instead of logic and reason.

The one continually appealing to fallacies here is you.
You continually set up strawmen to attack, and when your lies are refuted you just abandon ship and jump on another topic.

Just look at what you have done in this thread alone. Look at how many pathetic lies against the RE model you have made, had refuted, and then fled from like the lying coward you are?
Look at you here now, not even attempting to defend any of your lies and instead resorting to more insults.

The Gish Gallop is particularly used

By you, continually jumping topics and spamming as much pure BS as you can to pretend you are right.

I think that I have answered them in the past

You haven't.
You have fled from the questions because they show you are full of shit.

So are you hoping that if you go on repeating the same crap over and over again, that I'll believe you?

The one repeating the same crap over and over again is YOU!
Because when your crap is refuted, you flee like the lying coward you are, only to bring it up again later to get it refuted again.

Grow up.
Stop jumping around topics.
Pick an argument, and stick to it, and deal with the refutation of your lies.

How can I dismiss all space footage? Because I know better. Simple as that.

It is even simpler:
Because it shows you are wrong and have no interest in admitting you are wrong.
You cling to your fantasy like a safety blanket.

:giggles:

Out of prideful ignorance.

If the earth was flat, the below highly useful dial atlas would be useless and not meaningful in any way.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense

Quote

A Chewbacca Defense is a way of "winning" a debate through methods other than logic and reasoned argument. The essence of it is that if you get your opponent to give up, then you "win".

The False Dichotomy: If the other side is wrong about anything, no matter how irrelevant, they're wrong about everything — and you're right about everything.
The Ad Hominem: If you can do anything to make the other side look bad, you win. This is usually accomplished by misrepresenting their side entirely. Extra effective if you can compare them to Hitler.
The Red Herring: If you can get your opponent to talk about something other than the key points, you win. It can be easily combined with the Ad Hominem attack by accusing your opponent of supporting or opposing something totally irrelevant to the argument, in such a way that they have to address it.
Quality by Popular Vote: If you can show that your side is the more popular argument, you win, regardless of whether your side is the correct argument.
The Broken Record: If you repeat the same point over and over again, you win — because obviously, the other side didn't address it if you won't shut up about it. Extra effective if you keep repeating a catchy soundbite or buzzword.
The "Gish Gallop": Hit your opponent with as many arguments as you can in as short a timespan as you can. If they don't address every single one to your satisfaction, you win. And it's practically impossible for them to do that because they have no time to prepare and are not going to pay attention to everything you're vomiting out there.

This is what you learned at university. Not how to employ real logic or reason, but a number of fallacies to employ instead of logic and reason. The Gish Gallop is particularly used, as FAS has a text limit after which I simply cannot post without a 503 error. "Well what do you think of my nine points over here?" I think that I have answered them in the past, will probably think for new answers, and that you probably aren't listening to my answers in the first place.

Quote

Even accusing your opponent of using a Chewbacca Defense is itself a form of Chewbacca Defense. This means it's bad form to make such an accusation, which in turn leads to what's known as "Chewbacca's Dilemma" — first, you can't defend yourself from an actual Chewbacca Defense, and second, no matter how intelligently and clearly you make your point, certain opponents will always perceive your argument as a Chewbacca Defense.

:giggles:

So are you hoping that if you go on repeating the same crap over and over again, that I'll believe you? Because it's not right, today, tomorrow, or ten years from now.

How can I dismiss all space footage? Because I know better. Simple as that.

Umm, don't you mean you can dismiss all space footage because you know less? Like I said, I have university education, so you know less about thinking critically than I do, don't you? Which means you know less about thinking critically than JB, data, Tiemeup, and pretty much every other glober on here. It's an unfair advantage we have, and I'm all about fairness.

That's the real reason you can dismiss all space footage - because you know less.

Professors at university do exactly the opposite to what you say they do. You think professors brainwash their students to the orthodoxy when in actual fact, professors teach students to think critically.

Thinking critically is what you are sadly lacking, which is why flat earth videos like from Phuket World, make total sense to you. Believe me, even the locals in the jungles around Phuket who he tries to brainwash, think he's as smart as a box of rocks. But he's a genius in his own mind.

The only way I can see we can even up the critical thinking in these debates is if you undertake some sort of science study at university level, and pass. Buy hey, if that happened, you wouldn't be a flat earther anymore, sprouting your lack of education, now would you?

I assume you failed out.
You also said you were a janitor at a school...
Doesnt qualify as "attending" school
And like an incel who lacks the social selfawareness and blames everything onnthe liberal woman, - circles and triangles are not indoctrination.
You not understanding how theybwork doesnt mean theyre fake.


And
When you continue to dodge dorect questions and deflect into n9nsense tangents it is obvious.
So any pers9nal attacks is not ad hom.
Is it justified callong you out on your BS.
if you want creditibility, show some and stay on topic.

and why don't you try raising money to buy a rocket of your own to prove earth looks flat from space?
as pointed out in https://archive.is/umT7M, the first photograph of Earth from outer space was taken from a modified V-2 rocket in 1946.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_No._13
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1946-11-21_White_Sands_NM_V-2_rocket.ogg

I'm not in the practice of believing what is uttered through the idiot box. Are you?

Quote from: IceDragon on March 05, 2024, 12:27:14 PM

and why don't you try raising money to buy a rocket of your own to prove earth looks flat from space?
as pointed out in https://archive.is/umT7M, the first photograph of Earth from outer space was taken from a modified V-2 rocket in 1946.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_No._13
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1946-11-21_White_Sands_NM_V-2_rocket.ogg

I'm not in the practice of believing what is uttered through the idiot box. Are you?

How is flat earth helpful to anyone that is a star gazer / amateur astronomer?

I assume you failed out.
You also said you were a janitor at a school...
Doesnt qualify as "attending" school
And like an incel who lacks the social selfawareness and blames everything onnthe liberal woman, - circles and triangles are not indoctrination.
You not understanding how theybwork doesnt mean theyre fake.

This is the fruit of university education. Inability to argue without ad hominem, inability to remember the simplest things, and inability to grasp concepts.

I said I graduated. Not with honors, but maybe an A/B average for most courses. I was not exceptional but hardly a C student. I also took additional courses in marketing and vitculture.
I also said that my first job out of college was working as a janitor. I said this to point out how different this life was from the college life. I quickly learned that although I knew about literature and science, and everything my liberal arts education could afford, I quickly realized that I had never been taught how to manage and run a business. My first boss was (by all accounts in terms of education) "dumber than me". I suspect he was dyslexic and probably a dropout, as he'd often tell me his eyes weren't that good and ask me to read things for him. Yet, you know what? He knew how to run a business and manage its finances. I knew literature and science... which was worth practically nothing in term of the daily tasks of the business. I had it fill water for his industrial steam vacuum and apply the occasional Goo-Gone. 

Anyway, even were you convinced I was the janitor's helper at the school, that just shows your own entitlement. People who do that? They're poor. They put themselves through school working hard while also studying. You're a dumb snob. Should I also ask you if you maybe got into a university through your parents rather than your own intelligence?

But no, that is not my history. This is a major point of topic, as if you can't even be bothered to remember something simple about another person, how can I trust you to understand concepts?

I attended school. I graduated. I learned absolutely nothing useful for holding a job, and spent the next 15 years floundering, working at gardening jobs, volunteer stuff, self-employed jobs, or just internships. My student loan was paid of by my folks. Thank God for them. I never would have got anywhere on my own.

Yes, the accusation that I am an incel is spot on, and yes liberal women are fucked up in the head. I spent multiple years getting nowhere with the opposite sex. It would be a mercy if they rejected me outright. But I was their "gay friend" (hint: I was trans, not gay) while they instead fell for people who supported their bullshit. After a girl no matter how much I worried about her getting stuck in what appeared to be a sketchy relationship where she was saving all of her money to meet the guy (who never helped in this endeavor), I decided I had enough.

Again, none of this has anything to do with the fact that the model of space exploration doesn't work. You tell me to stay on topic, yet you fail utterly to even accuse me properly, forgetting things I've already told you. If I were to accuse myself, I'd have a valid case for talking about absolute shit job record, or how I didn't graduate with honors.

If I employed the same level of misunderstanding, I'd probably come up with all sorts of wild backstories for you.

So any pers9nal attacks is not ad hom.
Is it justified callong you out on your BS.

That's exactly what it is. Ad hominem, from "to the person", for things that involve attacks not on someone's argument or their logic, but instead their face, or their education level, or their family, or marital status. Me supposedly being full of BS doesn't make a fallacy non-fallacious or ad hominem suddenly not ad hominem. I can attack your spelling (learn to spell "direct", "personal", and "calling") because it is part of your diction. I can attack your logic too. But the moment I start saying "I bet you're a fat bitter woman who got conned into marrying a soyboy, and was shocked to see that he didn't want to raise kids, so you aborted yours," that's ad hominem territory. Justifications don't matter.

And for the record, circles and triangles don't actually exist in nature. The Platonic model of forms used for most math is based on theoretical ideas. There is no such thing as a 2D circle, square or triangle, except that you drew it. It is a tool to understanding and measuring. It doesn't exist in nature. Mountains are mostly triangular, and the horizon if you were to spin around would appear mostly a circle. But mostly isn't actually, and attempts to measure a mountain by math this way wind up as estimates.

That you don't understand math is not real when its founders would be careful to tell you it's only a tool means that your math and science is basically delusion territory. You don't possess the sense needed to separate mere ideas from things that can be seen, heard, or touched.
Anyone who thinks a circle or triangle is real is at the same level as someone who fawns over anime characters.

This is a drawing of a pipe, not a pipe itself.

Unlike the pipe, there is no "real" triangle.

This is the fruit of university education.

Which has nothing to do with this thread.

All you can do is flack a thread bulmabriefs144, and derail it.  Or you flee from topics. 

And the fact flat earth is a con, with no meaningful use for amateur or professional astronomers. 

Umm, don't you mean you can dismiss all space footage because you know less?

On the contrary. The more I learn about ignition, thermodynamics, buoyancy, mass, propulsion, the more implausible the idea becomes.

The science of propulsion (quite literally rocket science) falls apart because it asks us to ignore what we see in reality, that is that a simple balloon filled with helium has a height limit. Planes have a height limit. After a certain point, air is too thin for much of anything to fly.

If space travel were actually real, the ship would use the main shuttle to very precisely boost itself and the reserves tanks into space. But that's not what happens, is it? Nope, instead it guzzles all of its fuel from those big tanks to get into the thin air zone, dumps the big tanks to apparently slingshot into space...

AND THEN WHAT?

Without oxygen there can be no ignition. Without oxygen, you have no propulsion. Space is supposed to be a giant vacuum. You have nothing to push off of. You dumped the big tank when you could maybe use it to push off in empty space.

Yes, I know better.

This propulsion idea would be similar to heading to school on foot, and then tossing your books behind you to give you that "extra momentum" to get into class.

Teacher: Open your books to Chapter 5, page 115.
Student: Teacher, I don't have my books, I needed them for added propulsion.
Teacher: Oh, okay. I suppose it was difficult to reach escape velocity.

Those big tubes, were space travel possible, would be to boost you ahead when there is no air. But since they aren't used in space, I know immediately that the entire rocket science is built upon fraud.

 

The more I learn about ignition, thermodynamics, buoyancy, mass, propulsion, the more implausible the idea becomes.

But you contradictory believe the sun is a perpetual motion machine.  Have no explanation why the sun would orbit above earth in atmosphere. What different forces causes the sun and moon to change speeds and diameters of orbits through the year for a flat earth delusion.  And have no explanation why the sun sets and becomes physically blocked from view by earth’s curvature, yet much farther away and fainter stars are visible at night.  And you have no explanation for the pressure gradient of earth’s atmosphere.  And you have no explanation for a car in neutral I can push around all day long on a flat surface, but can’t push it up hill in any meaningful way. 

The science of propulsion (quite literally rocket science) falls apart because it asks us to ignore what we see in reality, that is that a simple balloon filled with helium has a height limit. Planes have a height limit. After a certain point, air is too thin for much of anything to fly.

Rockets literally hold and expel their own atmosphere to react it in a controlled explosion to creat thrust.


Helium balloons only rise to the point their density effectively is equal to a pressure gradient in the upper atmosphere.  Killing buoyancy is a fundamental force, but dependent on a force acting on air molecules.

Airplanes and jets use a combustion process that relies on enough oxygen in the atmosphere to act as oxidizer with their fuel. The oxygen concentration and atmospheric density becomes too thin in the upper atmosphere to support how they burn fuel.  Why supercharging an aircraft’s internal combustion engine helps. 

Rockets don’t have such limits because they carry their own fuel and have carry their oxidizer which is usually liquid oxygen.  Unless it’s a solid rocket fuel. And muscle their way up with thrust, and don’t rely on wings to create lift. 

No
Ad jom is when



: This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.






Since you did not defend your position, it is not an ad hom fallacy.
Because attscking your lack of intellect is not to deflect away from the points made.
Because you made no points.

Got it?
Probably not...

I know immediately that the entire rocket science is built upon fraud.

Because across at least three threads you ignored the repeated explanations and examples how rocket engines work, and how they carry their own fuel and oxidizer.  And how they create thrust.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 28, 2023, 08:57:20 AM

Only then can it accelerate for a while whilst the fuel is thrusting against the atmosphere.

That bullshit again. 

Why does a rocket need atmosphere to thrust against.


The rocket produces thrust that pushes it forward by the created atmosphere of expanding gasses from burning fuel that pushes out the rocket motor nozzle. 

It’s been extensively covered here…

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 11, 2023, 07:26:34 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 11, 2023, 06:43:16 AM

It actually has everything to do with it.

Which of your BS statements?

You

Quote

No. That's incomplete combustion. With more oxygen, you may be able to get a complete combustion.  But combustion relies on three things: heat, fuel, and oxygen. But in space, two of the three are missing.

Back to the liquid nitrogen video..

We know from the videos the rocket motors are going through a complete burn because the motors are actuating their end of burn ejection charges.

Now.. look!






The fuel and oxidizer are having no trouble creating the reaction that is fire under the blanket of liquid nitrogen.


You

Quote

A vacuum tube itself is not a chamber of zero gravity,

What is that you quote about the fire triangle?  It’s actually the fire tetrahedron now..

Quote

Quote

so we're not seeing in addition to zero gravity (which I don't believe in, but devil's advocate) the airless condition.

Hmm.  Nothing about gravity or pressure in the fire tetrahedron.

You

Quote

This is the reality of outer space, stripped of all your smoke and mirrors. The rocket has nothing to hold onto. Nothing to push against. It is moving across a void.

So?

This is the simplification of how rockets work.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 06, 2023, 05:51:13 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 06, 2023, 01:35:08 AM

In a vacuum, you have nothing to move against. No ground, no water, no air.

The rocket fuel burns, expands, and exerts forward momentum to the rocket through this process as the gasses exit the nozzle. 

The rocket fuel burning, creating gases that take up tens to thousands times the space of the fuel, with kinetic energy is providing the “matter”..

It’s a controlled explosion.

Quote

Figure 1.1 shows a combustion chamber with an opening, the nozzle, through which gas can escape. The pressure distribution within the chamber is asymmetric; that is, inside the chamber the pressure varies little, but near the nozzle it decreases somewhat. The force due to gas pressure on the bottom of the chamber is not compensated for from the outside. The resultant force F due to the internal and external pressure difference, the thrust, is opposite to the direction of the gas jet. It pushes the chamber upwards.

http://www.braeunig.us/space/propuls.htm

The rocket engine provides it own fuel and oxidizer.  Through a controlled explosion providing the mass to push it along in the form of a large expanding gas bubble at the nozzle.

Quote

I know why "science" (really scientism) likes to make this claim. Because of this passage.

You haven’t shown any scientific evidence of your stance.

You

Quote

Well sorry but at the end of the day, you have no means of traveling anywhere in the outer darkness (but through God), 360k mph or 15 mph.

You understand comets are real?  What makes them go about the solar system.  We should be able to obtain similar speeds then glide about like a comet? Why could we not travel around the solar system at speeds and in a manner similar to comets?

Quote

Comet Encke has a perihelion (closest approach to the Sun) of 0.336 AU (50.3 million km; 31.2 million mi). At perihelion Comet Encke passes the Sun at 69.9 km/s (252,000 km/h). Of the numbered comets less than 321P, only 96P/Machholz gets closer to the Sun.[12]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Encke#Orbit

Quote from: Stash on January 08, 2023, 11:16:54 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 08, 2023, 04:11:20 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 08, 2023, 02:29:18 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 08, 2023, 02:24:05 AM

Why does it have to work?

It only has to not explode in front of millions of people.

And then produce everything which it is meant to.
i.e. all the things which come from satellites.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 08, 2023, 02:24:05 AM

Because most people are convinced by an angled ascent, leveling off and then descending, because it is explained away by curvature. I am not.

You mean most people are convinced by a continued ascent, while you aren't because you are desperate to pretend it is fake, so you repeat the same that it is a descent, even though you cannot demonstrate that at all, and have no rational justification or evidence to support it.

And I just showed a video where the shuttle descended after leveling off.

You are so deep in denial you saw something on a video without having seen it.

Here's a rocket that shot straight up 351,000 feet (about 66 miles). It can do that because, if you actually cared to understand orbital mechanics in RE as opposed to just being a sheeple to FE, it wax not trying to orbit.




How deep in denial are you that you can't see a rocket going up straight 66 miles abover the earth?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 08, 2023, 04:11:20 AM

Meanwhile, someone else showed me a video where a rocket burned in a vacuum, and I focused on the fact that it only technically burned less than a second without slo motion.

Totally different. 

You missed the point entirely again. Doesn't matter if it lasted a second or an hour. A 2 inch rocket engine actually ignited and produced thrust in a...that's right...in a vacuum. Your claim is that it can't do that. It did do that.

You are so deep in denial you don't see something on a video that everyone else can clearly see.

- Ignition - See the flame?
- Thrust-  See the spring move?
- In a vacuum

No
Ad hominem is when

: This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.

Classic Facebook re-definition. Let's say that "fascism is (like what Donald Trump is, without really saying it directly)". Let's say that ad hominem (you're confusing ad hoc whenever you try to abbreviate this) is only attacks on a person when the circumstances are just right.

 I suppose next you'll redefine capitalism as:
A system where greedy rich people prey on the poor by forcing them to do work for money.

Ad hominem is ad hominem. I can change definitions of terms (like buoyancy), but you don't get to. This is because my definition change is an expansion of original concept whereas yours is a distortion. When I do it, it's totally okay.

Whether I made any points or not, the fallacy continues to be fallacy, just as I did a double-standard fallacy just now.

Classic Facebook re-definition.

What are you babbling about.  Rocket engines/motors have extensively been explained to you by multiple people in multiple threads, with repeated demonstrations how they provide their own mass, fuel, oxidizer, and release energy from the explosive reaction.  While your delusion requires a perpetual motion machine that you labeled the sun in the flat earth delusion which would violate the very “laws” you’re complaining about to keep the sun in orbit in atmosphere above a flat earth.