ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags flat earth , flat earthers

Reply
Old 2nd December 2017, 06:04 PM   #361
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Line of sight is less at sea level. Better?

Yes. Now... what does that have to do with My Argument??


Quote:
Your source does not prove your claim.

So a "Na'ahh" defense, eh? Riveting!! You wouldn't happen to be Pre-Law by chance?



Quote:
So it's believed by soldiers that capabilities and limitations of their weapon systems are made known to the public?

There's no 'belief' involved; Errr...I just showed you



Quote:
Say that out loud a couple times and you should see how stupid that claim is....

You lecturing me on Military Matters is tantamount to Elmer Fudd lecturing Tiger Woods on Back Swings!


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 06:12 PM   #362
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,379
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Yes. Now... what does that have to do with My Argument??





So a "Na'ahh" defense, eh? Riveting!! You wouldn't happen to be Pre-Law by chance?






There's no 'belief' involved; Errr...I just showed you






You lecturing me on Military Matters is tantamount to Elmer Fudd lecturing Tiger Woods on Back Swings!


regards
Dodge noted...............

In fact the article you posted on the gun is not specific as to why maximum range and effective range is different. Not very "Uber" specific there.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 06:23 PM   #363
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
You seem to be claiming that a container is necessary for there to be gas pressure.

"Seem"? So after 9 Pages...you finally got it. Kudos to you.



Quote:
Is that what you are claiming?





Quote:
2. If so where is the container that you are talking about?

It MUST BE Enclosing the Earth.


Quote:
Do you have pictures of it?

Nope. It's Conceptually the same as having a Rib-Eye...I really don't need to see the Cow or pictures thereof.


Quote:
Has anybody seen it?

Chances are good.



Quote:
Can it be detected?

You need to ask the people that were in Charge of Operation "Dominic" (Of The Lord) and Operation Fishbowl (and their Russian counterparts) that launched a Barrage of Nuclear Weapons into the Upper Atmosphere from 1958-1961. I'm sure they know


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 06:24 PM   #364
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by DGM View Post

In fact the article you posted on the gun is not specific as to why maximum range and effective range is different.

Yes, well they assume that the readers can 'fog a mirror'.



regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 06:42 PM   #365
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,379
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Yes, well they assume that the readers can 'fog a mirror'.



regards
It's not "Uber specific" as per SOP then is it? Care to try again at supporting your claim?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 2nd December 2017 at 06:43 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 06:52 PM   #366
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,350
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post

It MUST BE Enclosing the Earth.

regards
But you and I already established that the atmospheric pressure decreases as the altitude increases, which means (using your source, your cite, your reference) that it cannot be contained within a structure enclosing the Earth!

Not kidding, you and I are peas and carrots, we are a veritable, verifiable flat earth debunking MACHINE!
__________________
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 07:14 PM   #367
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,379
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
................................... I'm sure they know

Nothing like being sure to anchor a belief..........
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 07:41 PM   #368
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 15,836
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Yea, it sure is "Easy" to Make Stuff Up

Cite Source Please...?


regards
http://www.rfcafe.com/references/ele...e-of-sight.htm

Plus common sense.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 07:43 PM   #369
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 15,836
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
You lecturing me on Military Matters is tantamount to Elmer Fudd lecturing Tiger Woods on Back Swings!
You still have yet to demonstrate military expertise.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 12:24 AM   #370
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 5,256
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
It MUST BE Enclosing the Earth.
Are you able to answer a few questions regarding this container?
  • How far above the surface of the Earth is it?
  • Is it solid like glass or metal, or is it more like a mesh?
  • It it above or below the Moon and the Sun?
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 01:39 AM   #371
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,005
What I do wonder about Daniel, is why you think the conspiracy exists.

What use is it?

It can't have anything to do with any current government or religion as the circumference of the earth was calculated at least as early as 240 BC. (possibly earlier, but those are the earliest records we have).
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 01:53 AM   #372
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,240
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
Are you able to answer a few questions regarding this container?
  • How far above the surface of the Earth is it?
  • Is it solid like glass or metal, or is it more like a mesh?
  • It it above or below the Moon and the Sun?
These sound like good questions to me. Let's wait for answers before we move on.
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 03:21 AM   #373
alexi_drago
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,310
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Really?? LOL...

"The "PRESSURE OF A GAS" is the force that the gas exerts on the WALLS OF IT'S CONTAINER".
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchemb...0pressure.html

Yep, 'Bare' Assertion.


"A GAS is a sample of matter that conforms to the shape of a CONTAINER in which it is held and acquires a uniform density inside the CONTAINER, EVEN IN THE PRESENCE OF GRAVITY and regardless of the amount of substance in the CONTAINER. If not confined to a CONTAINER, gaseous matter, also known as vapor, WILL DISPERSE INTO SPACE."
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/gas

Again, 'Bare' Assertion.


"Kinetic Molecular Theory Explanation of Boyle's Law...

Observations about pressure may be explained using the following ideas. The rapid motion and collisions of molecules with the WALLS OF THE CONTAINER causes PRESSURE (force on a unit area). Pressure is proportional to the number of molecular collisions and the force of the collisions in a particular area. The more collisions of *GAS MOLECULES* with THE WALLS, the higher the PRESSURE."
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchemb...0pressure.html

And yet another, 'Bare' Assertion.






Yea, if your Reality is Shroom-Induced.


oy vey
Notice the bit that says
"Observations about pressure may be explained using the following ideas"
The use of a container is just an idea for explanation.

Also, is there or isn't there a pressure gradient that varies with altitude that is measurable? Does your container (sky dome) have uniform pressure from the atmosphere applied over its entire internal surface?
__________________
The secret NASA doesn't want you to know - God makes rockets work in space.

Last edited by alexi_drago; 3rd December 2017 at 03:22 AM.
alexi_drago is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 03:41 AM   #374
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,429
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
And...? What Problem is that?






For the 1287th Time: Red Herring Fallacy (Irrelevant/Diversion). Before we discuss "Varying Pressures" we MUST FIRST reckon with how we got "Gas Pressure" to begin with...without a Container

Folks this isn't that hard.



regards
For the 1288th time: through gravity. Like the sea has water pressure despite being contained only at the bottom.

It doesn't make a difference whether Einsteinian or Newtonian gravity.

Mass is the cause of gravity. This has been measured and confirmed in countless experiments.

You're welcome. Please spare me your hypocritical regards.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 03:42 AM   #375
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,429
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Yea, I do. That's the problem.
Please explain how a compass works, in your own words
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 07:04 AM   #376
Arisia
Graduate Poster
 
Arisia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: 26.2 from Boston
Posts: 1,033
Wow, so many expending so much energy!

Why?
Arisia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 08:43 AM   #377
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,478
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
I kind of doubt that he is able to understand it. If he had even a bit of a clue about geometry, he wouldn't be a flat earther.
I suspect you are right, but we can't have him claim he didn't receive an explanation. Whether he gets it is of limited concern to me.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 08:56 AM   #378
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,478
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
So I ask you...

1. Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??

a. Is gravity a Force?
Gravity exerts a force. It is a force that causes masses to attract.

The cause of gravity is currently understood as curvature of spacetime around a mass. Thus, it is not a "basic force". This, however, is of no consequence for everyday use.

Quote:
b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?
'gravity' is considered a physical law. This is, however, semantics. Suffice to say that no exceptions have ever been observed.


Quote:
Clumsy False Equivalence Fallacy: Mt Everest is a Physical Place that people can Stand On. Show the Physical Attributes and people standing on 'gravity'...?
Well, try standing on a chair. Now take one step to the side. You will now, for a short while, be "standing on gravity". Seriously though:

- Post any evidence against the existence of gravity.

Failing that,

- Post a coherent, evidence-backed theory that might supply an alternative explanation to the phenomenon that we can all observe as 'gravity'.


Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 08:59 AM   #379
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,478
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Really?? LOL...

"The "PRESSURE OF A GAS" is the force that the gas exerts on the WALLS OF IT'S CONTAINER".
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchemb...0pressure.html



"A GAS is a sample of matter that conforms to the shape of a CONTAINER in which it is held and acquires a uniform density inside the CONTAINER, EVEN IN THE PRESENCE OF GRAVITY and regardless of the amount of substance in the CONTAINER. If not confined to a CONTAINER, gaseous matter, also known as vapor, WILL DISPERSE INTO SPACE."
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/gas
Not really a problem. You can have your container. But what is the definition of a 'container'?

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 09:38 AM   #380
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 15,836
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
So I ask you...

1. Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??

Your Answer: skipped.

a. Is gravity a Force?

Your Answer: Gravity is a demonstrable attraction between physical objects based on mass.

Non-Sequitur Fallacy.


b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?

Your Answer: Gravity is the observable attraction between physical objects based on mass.

Another Non-Sequitur Fallacy.


c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?

Your Answer: Gravitational attraction is a property due to the mass of objects...la la la.

Another Non Sequitur Fallacy.

Why did you even post??

Your questions were, and are, irrelevant to whether gravity exists. The real question is why do you even bother to ask them at all?
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
...<all clipped because it is more bluster riffing on the same theme as above>...
Yes or no question before we continue this line of conversation:
Has an attraction between physical objects dependant on mass been observed to exist?
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 11:38 AM   #381
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Gravity exerts a force. It is a force that causes masses to attract.

Well then that Rules Out Einsteinian 'gravity'...

"Einstein came up with the theory of general relativity (1915), the prototype of all modern gravitational theories. Its crucial ingredient, involving a colossal intellectual jump, is the concept of gravitation, NOT AS A FORCE, but as a manifestation of the curvature of space-time..."
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/...ekenstein.html

Of course that leads into another 'problem', your "scientific community" (as if) doesn't follow Newtonian 'gravity'...

"...Einstein created his General Theory of Relativity —which provides OUR MODERN UNDERSTANDING of gravity —with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and NOT AN INVISIBLE FORCE, gives rise to gravitational attraction."
Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...e-nonlocality/

Can you reconcile this convoluted trainwreck here for us?




Quote:
The cause of gravity is currently understood as curvature of spacetime around a mass.



1. The Curvature of "Space-Time" is Einsteinian 'gravity' which you Ruled Out above.
Define the Law of Non-Contradiction...?

2. Martin Rees; FRS, Astronomer Royal; Esteemed British cosmologist/ astrophysicist...

"WHAT CAUSES GRAVITY AND MASS? Is the universe infinite? How did atoms assemble—on at least one planet around at least one star—into beings able to ponder these mysteries? THESE QUESTIONS STILL BAFFLE ALL OF US. Rather than the “end of science” being nigh, we are still near the beginning of the cosmic quest."
http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/p7115.pdf

So how can Professor Rees be "Baffled" and "You" know it ?? Could it be that you're just Mindlessly PARROTING 'wiki'?


Quote:
'gravity' is considered a physical law.

1. Now you're back to Newtonian 'gravity' . Which one are you gonna stick with??
2. Your 'scientific community' (as if) doesn't follow Newtonian 'gravity' (See Above: George Musser).
3. Who considers it a Physical Law?
4. What's the Law...?



Quote:
Suffice to say that no exceptions have ever been observed.

No Validation has ever been observed.




Quote:
Post any evidence against the existence of gravity.

It's the Acme of Foolishness to even consider, much less attempt, to disprove a Complete Argument from Ignorance Fallacy. The Non-Existence is the evidence of Non-Existence.
Do you find it 'Scientific' or 'Logical' to imagine things THEN have other people attempt to disprove your imaginings before you give evidence of your imaginings...?

Your appeal is tantamount to claiming that dark matter is created by Invisible 3 Toed Gnomes throwing Pixie Dust in a Black Hole behind the Crab Nebula, then requesting others DISPROVE it OR...Therefore, your Claim is TRUE!!!

Scientifically Validate your Claims FIRST ...then, I'll PUMMEL them !! K?



Quote:
Post a coherent, evidence-backed theory that might supply an alternative explanation to the phenomenon that we can all observe as 'gravity'.

I don't need a replacement 'theory' (aka: Fairytale) to PUMMEL yours.
Your appeal is tantamount to a Judge not allowing a Defendant to present a case for his innocence until such time as the Defendant has found a suitable replacement for the CRIME!!!



regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 11:43 AM   #382
Elagabalus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,844
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Well then that Rules Out Einsteinian 'gravity'...

<<SNIPPED>>

Baby steps. Did you step off the chair yet? Tell us what happened.

Last edited by Elagabalus; 3rd December 2017 at 12:06 PM. Reason: Because the poster posted the same nonsense again down below
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 11:54 AM   #383
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
For the 1288th time: through gravity.

For the 1288th Time:

1. Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??

a. Is gravity a Force?
b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?
c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?

2. Oh Never Mind...

"A GAS is a sample of matter that conforms to the shape of a CONTAINER in which it is held and acquires a uniform density inside the CONTAINER, EVEN IN THE PRESENCE OF GRAVITY and regardless of the amount of substance in the CONTAINER. If not confined to a CONTAINER, gaseous matter, also known as vapor, WILL DISPERSE INTO SPACE."
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/gas

You can confirm this yourself. Go out and depress the pin on your Tricycle Tire and tell us what happens.



Quote:
Like the sea has water pressure despite being contained only at the bottom.

1. False Equivalence Fallacy (658th Time): Water (liquid) is NOT a GAS even though both are arbitrarily classified as Fluids.

2. The sea doesn't have sides (??) it's just contained at the bottom?



Quote:
It doesn't make a difference whether Einsteinian or Newtonian gravity.

Yes, it surely does make a HUGE Difference...

Newtonian Gravity is ... "A Force".
Einsteinian Gravity is NOT ... "A Force".
They are 'Mutually Exclusive'. They're not even in the same Geometry for cryin out-loud:
Newtonian 'gravity' is Euclidean 3 Space; whereas, EinSHtienian 'gravity' is Pseudo- Riemannian 4 Space.
Newtonian 'gravity' is 'purportedly' a Scientific Law.
Einstein's gr is 'purportedly' a Scientific Theory.



Quote:
Mass is the cause of gravity. This has been measured and confirmed in countless experiments.

Yes and Pocahontas was a MI6 Mermaid and the mastermind behind the sinking of the Lusitania.

You need to contact Professor Rees and educate him...

Martin Rees; FRS, Astronomer Royal; Esteemed British cosmologist/ astrophysicist...

"WHAT CAUSES GRAVITY AND MASS? Is the universe infinite? How did atoms assemble—on at least one planet around at least one star—into beings able to ponder these mysteries? THESE QUESTIONS STILL BAFFLE ALL OF US. Rather than the “end of science” being nigh, we are still near the beginning of the cosmic quest."
http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/p7115.pdf



regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 11:56 AM   #384
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,478
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Well then that Rules Out Einsteinian 'gravity'...

"Einstein came up with the theory of general relativity (1915), the prototype of all modern gravitational theories. Its crucial ingredient, involving a colossal intellectual jump, is the concept of gravitation, NOT AS A FORCE, but as a manifestation of the curvature of space-time..."
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/...ekenstein.html

Of course that leads into another 'problem', your "scientific community" (as if) doesn't follow Newtonian 'gravity'...

"...Einstein created his General Theory of Relativity —which provides OUR MODERN UNDERSTANDING of gravity —with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and NOT AN INVISIBLE FORCE, gives rise to gravitational attraction."
Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...e-nonlocality/

Can you reconcile this convoluted trainwreck here for us?
Which trainwreck? Yours?

...

Try to, you know, actually READ my reply: I wrote, gravity exerts a force. Because it does. It was originally assumed that gravity was one of four basic forces of physics (the other three are the weak atomic force, electromagnetic force, and the strong atomic force), however, with Einstein, we may stop interpreting it as such.

Einstein notwithstanding, our observation of gravity is that of a force.


Quote:
1. The Curvature of "Space-Time" is Einsteinian 'gravity' which you Ruled Out above.
Define the Law of Non-Contradiction...?
No, I didn't. (Again, reading comprehension). I pointed out that we can treat it as a force, no matter the basic cause.

Quote:
2. Martin Rees; FRS, Astronomer Royal; Esteemed British cosmologist/ astrophysicist...

"WHAT CAUSES GRAVITY AND MASS? Is the universe infinite? How did atoms assemble—on at least one planet around at least one star—into beings able to ponder these mysteries? THESE QUESTIONS STILL BAFFLE ALL OF US. Rather than the “end of science” being nigh, we are still near the beginning of the cosmic quest."
http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/p7115.pdf

So how can Professor Rees be "Baffled" and "You" know it ?? Could it be that you're just Mindlessly PARROTING 'wiki'?
Easy: His job is to figure out the basic, in depth explanations. I just have to understand how it influences my world.

Quote:
No Validation has ever been observed.
You have not ... ever ... observed gravity at work? Seriously?? As in ... for real???

Come on!!

Quote:
It's the Acme of Foolishness to even consider, much less attempt, to disprove a Complete Argument from Ignorance Fallacy. The Non-Existence is the evidence of Non-Existence.
Do you find it 'Scientific' or 'Logical' to imagine things THEN have other people attempt to disprove your imaginings before you give evidence of your imaginings...?
Well, sorry to be the one to tell you this, but that is how things are working. Like it or not, the law of gravity is the accepted paradigm (and a very well established one at that), so if you want to go against it, you have the burden of proof. Too bad, perhaps, but ... them's the rules. ... Seriously, we can't be obliged to go around proving the obvious to any .... person ... who claims to not understand it.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 12:16 PM   #385
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Surface target? LOS is to the horizon and a little past.
Air target? LOS can be to 35 miles (plus some) depending on elevation.

Of course, this ^^^^ is in reference to the NATO Sea Sparrow. So I challenged you to CITE Source for your "Conjurings"; which you then provided...

Quote:

Ahhh... can you suss out where the NATO Sea Sparrow is even MENTIONED , much less anything concerning its RANGE for any Targets WHATSOEVER, from your Elephant Hurling Fallacy here...?


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 12:25 PM   #386
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,379
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Of course, this ^^^^ is in reference to the NATO Sea Sparrow. So I challenged you to CITE Source for your "Conjurings"; which you then provided...
Interesting. When I asked you to cite a source for an SOP for exact disclosure of specs for military systems you failed and resorted to insults.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 12:42 PM   #387
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Which trainwreck? Yours?

No, "Your" Convoluted Trainwreck that was specifically documented.


Quote:
Try to, you know, actually READ my reply

You then have the audacity to advise me to read your reply




Quote:
I wrote, gravity exerts a force.

I know AND THEN I clobbered your 'wiki' PARROTING buffoonery with...

Well then that Rules Out Einsteinian 'gravity'...

"Einstein came up with the theory of general relativity (1915), the prototype of all modern gravitational theories. Its crucial ingredient, involving a colossal intellectual jump, is the concept of gravitation, NOT AS A FORCE, but as a manifestation of the curvature of space-time..."
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/...ekenstein.html

Of course that leads into another 'problem', your "scientific community" (as if) doesn't follow Newtonian 'gravity'...

"...Einstein created his General Theory of Relativity —which provides OUR MODERN UNDERSTANDING of gravity —with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and NOT AN INVISIBLE FORCE, gives rise to gravitational attraction."
Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...e-nonlocality/

Can you reconcile this convoluted trainwreck here for us?


Is there something particularly confusing about the "Debunking" here to your "FORCE" Baseless Assertion Fallacy Claim that's particularly confusing?



Quote:
Because it does.

1. What's "IT"...?
2. And does "WHAT"...?



Quote:
It was originally assumed that gravity was one of four basic forces of physics (the other three are the weak atomic force, electromagnetic force, and the strong atomic force), however, with Einstein, we may stop interpreting it as such.

So now it's NOT a Force. OK, but you just said above...

"I wrote, gravity exerts a force."

So which is it??

ps. Your feeble semantic gymnastics "exerts" doesn't save your Convoluted Trainwreck here professor.



Quote:
Einstein notwithstanding, our observation of gravity is that of a force.

So NOW it's "A Force" Have you considered "Politics" as a vocation?



Quote:
I pointed out that we can treat it as a force, no matter the basic cause.

So we can treat it as a Force but it's NOT a Force, eh?




Quote:
You have not ... ever ... observed gravity at work? Seriously?? As in ... for real???
Come on!!

I've observed things falling to the ground...but I can call that "Duccolslopelgertz" or "Slopelduccolgertz"; they each have the same Scientific Veracity as your PARROTED 'gravity'.




Quote:
Well, sorry to be the one to tell you this, but that is how things are working. Like it or not, the law of gravity is the accepted paradigm (and a very well established one at that)

Really?? I hate to be the one to tell you this but you're in DIRECT CONTRADICTION with your 'scientific community', AGAIN...

"...Einstein created his General Theory of Relativity —which provides OUR MODERN UNDERSTANDING of gravity —with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and NOT AN INVISIBLE FORCE, gives rise to gravitational attraction."
Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...e-nonlocality/

Is there something here ^^^^ that's particularly confusing?


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 12:50 PM   #388
Elagabalus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,844
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
No, "Your" Convoluted Trainwreck that was specifically documented...

<<SNIP AGAIN!!>>

Time for another coat of shellack. What happened when you stepped off the chair?
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 12:53 PM   #389
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Interesting. When I asked you to cite a source for an SOP for exact disclosure of specs for military systems you failed

How could I have failed when I provided a Specific Example (M203 Point vs Area Target)?

This one to be precise: http://www.armystudyguide.com/conten...formatio.shtml

Ya see, SOP's (Standard Operating Procedures) are merely Common Practices. Even though the location/time ect ect of the mess halls/meals aren't documented in a Soldier's Manual, everyone showed up and had 3 Squares a Day (when in Garrison).


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 12:56 PM   #390
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
Time for another coat of shellack. What happened when you stepped off the chair?

I stepped onto the floor. What's next, a query on what happens when I turn a doorknob?


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 01:01 PM   #391
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,379
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
How could I have failed when I provided a Specific Example (M203 Point vs Area Target)?

This one to be precise: http://www.armystudyguide.com/conten...formatio.shtml

Ya see, SOP's (Standard Operating Procedures) are merely Common Practices. Even though the location/time ect ect of the mess halls/meals aren't documented in a Soldier's Manual, everyone showed up and had 3 Squares a Day (when in Garrison).


regards
So your proof of claim boils down to " I said so". Just as I thought.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 01:03 PM   #392
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Your questions were, and are, irrelevant to whether gravity exists.

Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit 'Hand Wave Dismissal' Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy.



Quote:
The real question is why do you even bother to ask them at all?

1. Appeal to Motive/Intent Fallacy.
2. To show that you have No CLUE of the Topic. Mission Accomplished!!



Quote:
Yes or no question before we continue this line of conversation:
Has an attraction between physical objects dependant on mass been observed to exist?

No.

Define Mass...?


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 01:12 PM   #393
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,379
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Define Mass...?

Goes to the next avenue of diverging. Anything to avoid the real issue.

What's your definition of mass?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 3rd December 2017 at 01:14 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 01:13 PM   #394
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
So your proof of claim boils down to " I said so". Just as I thought.

No. The Proof for the Claim of Documented Weapon/Munition Characteristics/Ranges ect was the M203 'link'. It's a "Well Duh" Scenario.

As for the Range of the NATO Sea Sparrow it's documented Range is 50 km. (However, it's Caveated with: the ACTUAL Range is Classified)...Meaning it's much FARTHER than 50 km.
All I need is the "50 km's" to Validate my claim....anything more is BONUS.


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 01:16 PM   #395
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Goes to the next avenue of diverging. Anything to avoid the real issue.

How can I be "Diverging" when I answered his "Yes/No" Question with "NO", pray tell?

Is this the same scenario where I failed to provide a "reference" when I provided a "reference"??


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 01:17 PM   #396
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,379
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
No. The Proof for the Claim of Documented Weapon/Munition Characteristics/Ranges ect was the M203 'link'. It's a "Well Duh" Scenario.

As for the Range of the NATO Sea Sparrow it's documented Range is 50 km. (However, it's Caveated with: the ACTUAL Range is Classified)...Meaning it's much FARTHER than 50 km.
All I need is the "50 km's" to Validate my claim....anything more is BONUS.


regards
Your claim is limitations such as at sea level targets are defined as per SOP. You fail.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 3rd December 2017 at 01:19 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 01:29 PM   #397
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,379
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
How can I be "Diverging" when I answered his "Yes/No" Question with "NO", pray tell?

Is this the same scenario where I failed to provide a "reference" when I provided a "reference"??


regards
Skipped your definition of Mass. Care to field that question or is that something you also don't know?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 01:31 PM   #398
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Your claim is limitations such as at sea level targets are defined as per SOP. You fail.

My claim, or better said... the US Navy's Claim, is that the Range of the NATO Sea Sparrow is 50 km's. It's Case Closed.
(btw: is also confirmed by a US Navy Missile Instructor )

I "Pass" which IPSO FACTO means your Fairytale "Sphere" is annihilated.


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 01:40 PM   #399
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Skipped your definition of Mass.

My retort "Define Mass...?" was After the Fact of answering his question: "NO". So your feeble frivolous appeal of "Diverging" was nonsense.



Quote:
Care to field that question or is that something you also don't know?

I know the answer to the question...fyi: I don't ask questions that I don't know the answer to


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 01:44 PM   #400
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,379
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
My claim, or better said... the US Navy's Claim, is that the Range of the NATO Sea Sparrow is 50 km's. It's Case Closed.
(btw: is also confirmed by a US Navy Missile Instructor )

I "Pass" which IPSO FACTO means your Fairytale "Sphere" is annihilated.


regards

I bet you hate the fact people can see what you actual said:

Originally Posted by Daniel View Post

Ya see, when the Military denotes Ranges of its Weapon Systems/Munitions, it's SOP to be Uber Specific and Differentiate if there are limitations with different Targets/Situations (e.g., M203 -- Point vs Area Targets).
In this Particular Case, they DID NOT; Ergo...50 km's (Again, "Low Ball") is the Range for ALL Targets and the limitations are inherent to the Weapon System/Munition itself, nothing else.
Care to back peddle now?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:20 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.