IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 3rd December 2017, 01:48 PM   #401
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by Arisia View Post
Wow, so many expending so much energy!

Why?

Well because their Fairytale 'Spinning-Ball' is going down faster than the Hindenburg.


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, 01:53 PM   #402
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
I know the answer to the question...fyi: I don't ask questions that I don't know the answer to


regards
I asked for your definition. You seem unable to answer my question. Why should I answer yours?
__________________
"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 01:55 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, 02:03 PM   #403
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
It's not "Uber specific" as per SOP then is it? Care to try again at supporting your claim?

So:

Point Target --- 150 Meters.
Area Target --- 350 Meters. Is not Uber Specific??

Would you like it in Nanometers?


We can even discover the mysteries of all the Munitions and Characteristics thereof for the M203.


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, 02:04 PM   #404
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
No.

Define Mass...?


regards
Mass defined as the amount of physical substance a physical substance has.

Therefore you deny experimental evidence, repeated several times, accurately used to measure the strength of attraction between substances based on their amount of substance.

Since you are in denial of reality, I see no point in giving any credence to your thoughts on the actual shape of the Earth.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
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, 02:11 PM   #405
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
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
No, because a target can be above the horizon and be line of sight, at 50 km. Self-declared victory by you negated.

You know that self-declared victory in a debate is only useful for ego-stoking don't you? Can you think of better ways to get an endorphin rush that aren't dependant on false pride?
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
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, 02:14 PM   #406
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
Daniel,

Please reconcile the following issue.

Quote:
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

You - Earth's Atmosphere is in a Container
Your Link - Gas inside a Container acquires a uniform density inside the container, even in the presence of gravity and regardless of the amount of substance in the container

Observable reality - Earth's Atmosphere is not of a uniform Density!

How do you explain that observation contradicts what must be true if your assertion that Earth's atmosphere is in a container is also true?


BTW, this is what Scientists's call falsification. See we start with a Hypothesis....

Hypothesis - The Earth's Atmosphere is restrained by a container.

We then come up with ways to test this in an attempt to disprove our hypothesis (falsify it).

Known Properties of Gases - All gases in containers must be of a uniform density even in the presence of gravity or the amount of gas in the container.

Test - Does Earth's Atmosphere have a uniform density?

Answer - No, density declines with logarithmic proportionality to altitude.

Conclusion - ?????


By the way, when we fail to disprove our hypothesis multiple times to the point where it seems to be true, then we get to call our Hypothesis a Theory. See the normal use of the word Theory, and the Scientific usage are rather different.

Normal Usage - A idea that is based on conjecture but is really unproven.
Scientific Usage - A hypothesis that we have thrown everything at and have been unable to disprove.

Scientific Laws are just Theories that we have tested so often and have passed every test we have thrown at them, that we pretty much assume it has to be the truth. So for Scientists there is really no difference in acceptance of the Theory of Relativity and the Laws of Motion, it just means one has been tested a whole lot more than the other.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 3rd December 2017 at 02:16 PM.
PhantomWolf 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, 02:20 PM   #407
alexi_drago
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,353
Quote:
Conclusion - ?????
Air density at top of Everest must be the same as at sea level because they're in the same container (sky dome)
__________________
The secret NASA doesn't want you to know - God makes rockets work in space.
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, 02:21 PM   #408
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,894
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
You then have the audacity to advise me to read your reply
Yes, because I assumed that if you did, you would understand it. Seems I was wrong.

Quote:
Well then that Rules Out Einsteinian 'gravity'...
Nope. You see, it works just the same.

Quote:
Can you reconcile this convoluted trainwreck here for us?
"Us"? If that means "you", I'm beginning to doubt it. But, the loss is bearable.

Quote:
Is there something particularly confusing about the "Debunking" here to your "FORCE" Baseless Assertion Fallacy Claim that's particularly confusing?
That would be something I would have to ask you. Is it hard to understand that, whatever its basic source, it would be OK to regard gravity as a force?

However, it is not my problem. YOU demanded to know whether it is a force, or the Einsteinian explanation. The proper answer is "both", but ... if that's a problem for you, I suggest you study literature till you can make a personal decision. I don't really care much.

Quote:
1. What's "IT"...?
2. And does "WHAT"...?
1. Gravity.
2. Makes stuff fall down.

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

"I wrote, gravity exerts a force."

So which is it??
Look, it I press your button, I exert a force, but I ain't one.

Quote:
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'.
Whatever. And your point is? Do things fall to the ground? Does a column of fluid exert a pressure? Does air pressure diminsh with altitude?

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans 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 3rd December 2017, 02:48 PM   #409
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
So:

Point Target --- 150 Meters.
Area Target --- 350 Meters. Is not Uber Specific??

Would you like it in Nanometers?


We can even discover the mysteries of all the Munitions and Characteristics thereof for the M203.


regards
Maximum range: 1312.4 feet (400 meters)

There's 250 meters of not so "Uber" gray area there..................

Where is the "Uber" range specs for the Sparrow?
__________________
"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 02:50 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, 03:22 PM   #410
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 18,384
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
No, because a target can be above the horizon and be line of sight, at 50 km. Self-declared victory by you negated.

You know that self-declared victory in a debate is only useful for ego-stoking don't you? Can you think of better ways to get an endorphin rush that aren't dependant on false pride?
Actually the sudden appearance of a target over the local horizon and the limited engagement time due to their speed was one of the reasons for the development of the Sea Sparrow and other similar point defense systems.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-7_Sea_Sparrow

Initially the mark 115 manned director would paint the target with a radar beam. Thus requiring line of sight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-7_..._Director.JPEG

The current Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (range 50km) makes use of more advanced guidance systems.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-162_ESSM

However, the actual need for illuminating radar for at least terminal engagement won't be dispensed with until 2020 with the block 2's active radar.

Quote:

Unlike Block 1, Block 2’s active radar homing seeker will support terminal engagement without the launch ship’s target illumination radars. The improved ESSM Block II will be fielded by the US Navy from 2020.[8][9]
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 3rd December 2017 at 03:23 PM. Reason: typo
The Man 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, 06:39 PM   #411
Arisia
Graduate Poster
 
Arisia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Near Wa-Wa-Wachusett
Posts: 1,052
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Well because their Fairytale 'Spinning-Ball' is going down faster than the Hindenburg.


regards
Oh the humanity of the sphericalist conspiracy, eh?*



* - full disclosure - I'm a card-carrying member of the conspiracy, Geography/Cartography section. You seem to be doing most of your arguing with the Physics and Military sections. But hey, as long as everyone is still having fun, keep at it! Don't forget to save some energy for a nice flounce at the end, of course.
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, 11:37 PM   #412
Octavo
Illuminator
 
Octavo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,485
More evidence emerges of the true nature of the firmament.
__________________
This signature is intended to imitate people.
Octavo 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 4th December 2017, 01:14 AM   #413
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
There was a "supermoon" last night (perigee syzygy). Do the flat earthers have any theory as to why the moon is sometimes closer and sometimes further away from the earth? I mean, it obviously can't be in orbit, because that would require gravity, and gravity rather ***** up their whole fantasy. So what is it doing?
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG 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 4th December 2017, 02:24 AM   #414
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,434
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
There was a "supermoon" last night (perigee syzygy). Do the flat earthers have any theory as to why the moon is sometimes closer and sometimes further away from the earth? I mean, it obviously can't be in orbit, because that would require gravity, and gravity rather ***** up their whole fantasy. So what is it doing?
The story of the precise collection of data about the paths of solar system objects (Tycho Brahe), the use of that data to show that objects in our solar system follow elliptical orbits(Kepler), the discovery of a mathematical way of predicting the path and speed of the objects (Kepler) and finally Newton's coupling of his gravitational theory and the mathematics he invented to prove the connection between the orbits of the planets and gravity is stirring. For a moment in time Newton had a deeper understanding of the solar system than anybody before him.

I don't know that Daniel truly believes what he has put forth here, but if he does he has failed to appreciate one of the most magnificent stories of human achievement in all history.

A few other things of note here:
1. Tycho Brahe believed in a geocentric theory of the universe
2. Tycho Brahe did not believe in a flat earth as far as I could tell. It had been determined to be roughly a sphere sometime before 500 BCE
3. Erasthenes came up with a very good estimate for the circumference of the earth by observing the angle of a shadow in two different cities at the summer solstice in 240 BCE. This is a technique anybody can use today and you don't need to wait for a solstice. You can just use clocks and call up a buddy in a different city to get the angle of a shadow at noon.
4. Kepler made two important discoveries using Brahe's data:
4A. The planets and the moon follow elliptical orbits
4B. He came up with a mathematical technique for estimating the speed of the planets based on where they were in their orbits.
5. Newton used the information about the orbits of the planets discovered by Kepler, his gravitational theory and his mathematics to explain why the planets moved in elliptical orbits.
6. One of the reasons that Brahe rejected the heliocentric theory of the universe was that he couldn't detect the parallax of angles to the stars he expected to find if the earth was orbiting the sun. He didn't believe that the stars could be so far away that he couldn't calculated their position using parallax measured where the heliocentric model predicted two positions of the earth separated by half a year.
7. It wasn't until sometime in the 1800's that the technology was available to make fine enough measurements to the stars that it was possible to determine how far away they were from earth.
__________________
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 4th December 2017, 05:26 AM   #415
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,259
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Well because their Fairytale 'Spinning-Ball' is going down faster than the Hindenburg.





regards


Your replies are getting lower energy as the thread proceeds. I give that one a 1 out of 10, but only because a 0 is not responding at all.

You’ve reached the point where you might as well be calling anyone who disagrees with Flat Earth mythology a “poopiehead” with no further elaboration.
halleyscomet 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 4th December 2017, 05:31 AM   #416
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,259
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Straw Man Fallacy: I don't and never had a 'model'. Why? Well...



'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science:



Please show "models" in the Scientific Method...? (and not "Ball-Stick" Airplane 'Models' Either !!! lol)...?



"A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a LIMITATION ON IT'S VALIDITY."

https://www.thoughtco.com/hypothesis...nd-law-2699066



Allow me to translate: "Pseudo-Science"...There is no such animal as a Scientific Hypothesis with 'limited validity' it's tantamount to a woman being 'A LITTLE' PREGNANT !!

REAL Scientific Hypotheses are either CONFIRMED or INVALIDATED, PERIOD...End of Story!!

Furthermore, Scientific Hypotheses do not exist in PERPETUITY or wait for more DATA !!! 'Data' comes FROM Experiments --- (Hypothesis TESTS).

A "Model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UN-TESTABLE!!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !!





regards


Ah, then you admit you have no explanation for phenomena that contradicts your mythology and you further admit you see no problem with this.

Your admitted and enthusiastic reality denial has been noted.

I find it amusing you accuse me of the straw man fallacy and then proceed to construct a comically bloated straw man of your own. I give your post a 3/10 on the Trolling scale. I’m grading you on a curve because most your entries have been so poor to begin with.
halleyscomet 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 4th December 2017, 06:56 AM   #417
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
Originally Posted by Octavo View Post
More evidence emerges of the true nature of the firmament. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...c9e4ed0b9f.jpg
Funny!

On the subject of the firmament, I've attached a couple of photos showing how the concept fails (aside from Barnard's star, that is.)
Attached Images
File Type: jpg FB_IMG_1512003031670.jpg (48.3 KB, 5 views)
File Type: jpg AAO-star-trails.jpg (55.5 KB, 2 views)
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
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 4th December 2017, 06:58 AM   #418
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
There is apparently a "thought" process that believes that "random **** just happens" is not a model...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn 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 4th December 2017, 07:02 AM   #419
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 18,384
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Ah, then you admit you have no explanation for phenomena that contradicts your mythology and you further admit you see no problem with this.

Your admitted and enthusiastic reality denial has been noted.

I find it amusing you accuse me of the straw man fallacy and then proceed to construct a comically bloated straw man of your own. I give your post a 3/10 on the Trolling scale. I’m grading you on a curve because most your entries have been so poor to begin with.

Naw, I don't think Daniel constructed that strawman as it is practically word for word what another poster claimed on another thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=319960

So it seem like just a general use strawman to decry models without, obviously, understanding them, their almost ubiquitous use (we even construct them in our heads about how, the world, universe, things, animals and people might behave, we couldn't function with out it), and just the nature of a hypothesis in general (that it is specifically limited in it's validity by what it asserts).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_model

Heck, even just the absolutist approach that something must be totally valid or totally invalid is a metal model that isn't externally consistent nor even capable of accepting one's own limitations.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 4th December 2017, 07:20 AM   #420
calebprime
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,001
Originally Posted by Octavo View Post
More evidence emerges of the true nature of the firmament. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...c9e4ed0b9f.jpg
kitty!

Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Naw, I don't think Daniel constructed that strawman as it is practically word for word what another poster claimed on another thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=319960

So it seem like just a general use strawman to decry models without, obviously, understanding them, their almost ubiquitous use (we even construct them in our heads about how, the world, universe, things, animals and people might behave, we couldn't function with out it), and just the nature of a hypothesis in general (that it is specifically limited in it's validity by what it asserts).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_model

Heck, even just the absolutist approach that something must be totally valid or totally invalid is a metal model that isn't externally consistent nor even capable of accepting one's own limitations.
Hah! I've never spoken of this absurd strawman, your so-called "metal model".

You are demolished.

Checkmate, ISF not-so-smart man!

You clearly know no more of the fundamental nature of reality than does some extremely stupid person!

Consider yourself devastated, ect, ect, after mind-numbing ect!
calebprime 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 4th December 2017, 08:40 AM   #421
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 5,805
You know. If the flat earth model were, in fact, the correct one, we would be able to view all stars and constellations from pretty much anywhere in the world.

However, we find that there are stars and constellations that are only viewable in the northern hemisphere, and not in the southern, and vice-versa of course. How do the flat-earthers reconcile this?
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar 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 4th December 2017, 08:46 AM   #422
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
Originally Posted by Shalamar View Post
You know. If the flat earth model were, in fact, the correct one, we would be able to view all stars and constellations from pretty much anywhere in the world.

However, we find that there are stars and constellations that are only viewable in the northern hemisphere, and not in the southern, and vice-versa of course. How do the flat-earthers reconcile this?
Have you ever *seen* this so-called Southern Hemisphere?

And define Australia!
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 4th December 2017, 08:58 AM   #423
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 5,805
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Have you ever *seen* this so-called Southern Hemisphere?

And define Australia!
You forgot the random listings of fallacies, and then to demand that you've won.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar 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 4th December 2017, 09:54 AM   #424
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,259
Originally Posted by Shalamar View Post
You know. If the flat earth model were, in fact, the correct one, we would be able to view all stars and constellations from pretty much anywhere in the world.

However, we find that there are stars and constellations that are only viewable in the northern hemisphere, and not in the southern, and vice-versa of course. How do the flat-earthers reconcile this?
Videos! There are videos about it!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


This discussion seems to gravitate between outright denial and blaming light pollution:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5459.0
halleyscomet 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 4th December 2017, 10:07 AM   #425
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,259
If you ignore enough data, you can use the stars as proof of the Flat Earth Mythology:
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2...lat-earth.html

Of course some people look at things a bit further South:
http://www.thecreatorscalendar.com/t...-earth-theory/

Even the folks at "Answers in Genesis" take issue with Flat Earth "logic."
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/d...h-star-trails/
halleyscomet 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 4th December 2017, 10:32 AM   #426
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 5,805
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Videos! There are videos about it!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
This one hurt my head 'Mirror ball!'



Quote:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
This one was weird. NO idea what they were trying to say.

Quote:
This discussion seems to gravitate between outright denial and blaming light pollution:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5459.0
A little more interesting, but yes, straight denial.

Several years ago, I was on a trip to Hawaii, and took my Telescope with me. I traveled to the top of Mount Haleakala. which is one of the best Dark Sky sites in the world. Amazing. I watched stars and constellations rise over the horizon, but, no matter where I pointed my Telescope, there were stars that I could not see, yet, there would be those on the southern hemishere who could.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar 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 4th December 2017, 10:46 AM   #427
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Elagabalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 7,051
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Videos! There are videos about it!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


This discussion seems to gravitate between outright denial and blaming light pollution:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5459.0

From one of the comments in your first link:


JESUS RAVES!!
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 4th December 2017, 10:55 AM   #428
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
Originally Posted by Shalamar View Post
You know. If the flat earth model were, in fact, the correct one, we would be able to view all stars and constellations from pretty much anywhere in the world.

However, we find that there are stars and constellations that are only viewable in the northern hemisphere, and not in the southern, and vice-versa of course. How do the flat-earthers reconcile this?
Not only that, as the picture I attached in a previous post shows, the stars in the southern hemisphere circle the South Pole in a time lapse. Kinda hard to do if Antarctica is shmeared in every direction around a flat Earth.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
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 4th December 2017, 11:28 AM   #429
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 18,384
Originally Posted by calebprime View Post
kitty!



Hah! I've never spoken of this absurd strawman, your so-called "metal model".

You are demolished.

Checkmate, ISF not-so-smart man!

You clearly know no more of the fundamental nature of reality than does some extremely stupid person!

Consider yourself devastated, ect, ect, after mind-numbing ect!
Dang, foiled once again by the "I win, you lose" declaration. I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for that...









...and those meddling kids!!!!!!
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 4th December 2017 at 11:33 AM.
The Man 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 4th December 2017, 11:29 AM   #430
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 25,863
Originally Posted by Arisia View Post
Wow, so many expending so much energy!

Why?
Chew toys are fun, whether tough or flimsy.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith 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 4th December 2017, 12:05 PM   #431
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,259
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
I stepped onto the floor. What's next, a query on what happens when I turn a doorknob?
Don't be silly. You don't necessarily need gravity to turn a doorknob.
halleyscomet 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 4th December 2017, 12:08 PM   #432
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,259
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
No, "Your" Convoluted Trainwreck that was specifically documented.





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







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?






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






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.






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






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







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'.







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
Assuming you wish to learn, many of your questions and more are answered here:

The Hunt for Vulcan: . . . And How Albert Einstein Destroyed a Planet, Discovered Relativity, and Deciphered the Universe

It's available in hardcover, paperback, eBook and audio book.

Quote:
“Delightful . . . a charming tale about an all-but-forgotten episode in science history.”—The Wall Street Journal

“Engaging . . . At heart, this is a story about how science advances, one insight at a time. But the immediacy, almost romance, of [Thomas] Levenson’s writing makes it almost novelistic.”—The Washington Post

“Captures the drama of the tireless search for this celestial object.”—Science

“Levenson’s narrative is a well-structured, fast-paced example of exemplary science writing. A scintillating popular account of the interplay between mathematical physics and astronomical observations.”—Kirkus Reviews (starred review)

“The Hunt for Vulcan is a short, beautifully produced book that tells a cautionary tale. . . . Levenson is a breezy writer who renders complex ideas in down-to-earth language . . . and colorfully illustrates the limits of scientific theory as it faces new data and even more persuasive theories.”—The Boston Globe

“Thomas Levenson wonderfully tells the story of Vulcan. . . . Looping through science history from Isaac Newton onwards, Levenson elegantly reveals the evolutionary nature of scientific thought, and the marvel of the revolution that Einstein wrought.”—Nature

“An essential read . . . a compelling story that successfully portrays how science deals with ambiguity . . . The Hunt for Vulcan succeeds spectacularly at displaying the intricate, confusing, and sometimes quirky way science progresses.”—Ars Technica

“This delightful and enlightening drama tells the story of the hunt for a planet that did not exist and how Einstein resolved the mystery with the most beautiful theory in the history of science. The Hunt for Vulcan is an inspiring tale about the quest for discovery and the challenges and joys of understanding our universe.”—Walter Isaacson

“The Hunt for Vulcan is equal to the best science writing I’ve read anywhere, by any author. Beautifully composed, rich in historical context, deeply researched, it is, above all, great storytelling. Levenson gives a true picture of the scientific enterprise, with all its good and bad guesses, wishful thinking, passion, human ego, and desire to know and understand this strange and magnificent cosmos we find ourselves in.”—Alan Lightman, author of The Accidental Universe

Last edited by halleyscomet; 4th December 2017 at 12:09 PM.
halleyscomet 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 4th December 2017, 03:12 PM   #433
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I bet you hate the fact people can see what you actual said:

On the contrary, I love it; That's why I write it.



Quote:
Care to back peddle now?

Backpedal from what??


I said...: 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).

Then I SUPPORTED that claim by posting a Reference that showed you that very fact with the M203.
This is 'cut and dry'.

This little Nonsensical Appeal Charade you got going on is and quite boring.


Please respond with a 'Coherent' Substantive argument/position or consider this "Goodbye".

Thanks


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 4th December 2017, 03:30 PM   #434
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Mass defined as the amount of physical substance a physical substance has.

A "Tad" Circular dont'cha think?

Errr...

"Nature does not offer us any concept as 'the amount of matter'. History has struck down every proposal to define such a term. Even if we could count the number of atoms or by any other counting method try to evaluate amount of matter, that number would not equal mass".
Taylor, Edwin., Wheeler, John: Spacetime Physics, p. 248, 1992



Quote:
Therefore you deny experimental evidence, repeated several times, accurately used to measure the strength of attraction between substances based on their amount of substance.

There are ZERO Experiments let alone anything "Repeated".

Moreover, I'd wager a small fortune that you wouldn't know what an Actual Experiment consists of or be able to differentiate one from a Pipe Wrench. Let's TEST that contention...

Walk us through the Construction of an Experiment regarding ANYTHING...?
(Hint: it starts with the First Step of The Scientific Method)



Quote:
Since you are in denial of reality

Not quite. I'm in Denial of your "Claims to Evidence" which are nothing more than Baseless Ipse Dixit 'bare' Assertion Fallacies.



Quote:
I see no point in giving any credence to your thoughts on the actual shape of the Earth.

You see no point because you (and your 'brethren') have gotten your Hats Handed to You so many times in this thread it's ridiculous.



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 4th December 2017, 03:49 PM   #435
alexi_drago
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,353
On a flat earth, how are these explained?

Sunrise/sunset

Angular size of sun is same from sunrise to sunset

In Australia sunrise can be south of East and sunset can be south of West at some times of year

Circular star trails when looking south in the southern hemisphere

The same stars are visible when looking south in the southern hemisphere no matter if you're in Africa, Australia or south america
__________________
The secret NASA doesn't want you to know - God makes rockets work in space.
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 4th December 2017, 04:05 PM   #436
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Daniel,

Please reconcile the following issue.

You - Earth's Atmosphere is in a Container
Your Link - Gas inside a Container acquires a uniform density inside the container, even in the presence of gravity and regardless of the amount of substance in the container

AGAIN Red Herring Fallacy via Begging The Question Fallacy: Where'd you get "Gas Pressure" to begin with if there's NOT a Container...? <--- Answer this First; THEN we can discuss the mysteries of "Varying Pressure" in a Container.




Quote:
Observable reality - Earth's Atmosphere is not of a uniform Density!

That's Great!! Red Herring Fallacy (again).



Quote:
BTW, this is what Scientists's call falsification. See we start with a Hypothesis....

Hypothesis - The Earth's Atmosphere is restrained by a container.

THANKS, Priceless!!!

This isn't a Viable Scientific Hypothesis, professor.

Highlight the:

'Independent Variable': The Cause, i.e., what is being varied/manipulated by you...? So as to Confirm (The Effect) --- Dependent Variable...?



Quote:
Known Properties of Gases - All gases in containers must be of a uniform density even in the presence of gravity or the amount of gas in the container.

Correct. All Gasses MUST BE in Containers to avail Gas Pressure. You just Proved My Case




Quote:
Test - Does Earth's Atmosphere have a uniform density?

Ahhh, that's NOT a TEST...it's a Known Fact.




Quote:
By the way, when we fail to disprove our hypothesis multiple times to the point where it seems to be true, then we get to call our Hypothesis a Theory.

Yes, I know. But you have yet to post a Viable Scientific Hypothesis.





Quote:
See the normal use of the word Theory, and the Scientific usage are rather different.

You're Preach'n to the Choir.




Quote:
Scientific Laws are just Theories that we have tested so often and have passed every test we have thrown at them

THANKS AGAIN!! And Unsolicited no less. Errr, professor...

"Scientific Theories": "Explain" --- The How/WHY (mechanisms/process) and Identify The CAUSE; e.g., Germ Theory. Scientific Theories are the Result of Validated/Confirmed Scientific Hypotheses that have been rigorously TESTED.

"Scientific Laws": "describe" ---The What/IS (The How/Why and "CAUSE" is N/A). They are based SOLELY on OBSERVATIONS of "Natural Laws". Often expressed mathematically. e.g., 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

That's why they're called The Laws of Thermodynamics and NOT the 'Theories' of Thermodynamics.


Scientific Law vs Scientific Theory:

"Look above at the last definitions under Law and Theory. These definitions clearly differentiate the two words. Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a LAW DESCRIBES WHAT nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A THEORY EXPLAINS HOW nature works..... From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science."
http://facultyweb.kennesaw.edu/rmats...s/theories.php

Scientific Laws NEVER become Scientific Theories or vice versa they're different domains and answer different questions.

Ergo...You'd "FAIL" 5th Grade General Science.




Quote:
that we pretty much assume it has to be the truth. So for Scientists there is really no difference in acceptance of the Theory of Relativity and the Laws of Motion, it just means one has been tested a whole lot more than the other.

Thanks Again!!!


Do you need any more Gasoline with your Matches??



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 4th December 2017, 04:06 PM   #437
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 5,805
Originally Posted by alexi_drago View Post
On a flat earth, how are these explained?

Sunrise/sunset

Angular size of sun is same from sunrise to sunset

In Australia sunrise can be south of East and sunset can be south of West at some times of year

Circular star trails when looking south in the southern hemisphere

The same stars are visible when looking south in the southern hemisphere no matter if you're in Africa, Australia or south america
Let me try.

Ahem:

"Begging The question!!"

"Ad Hominiem!"

"Throwing Elephants!"

"A Toddler knows these answers!"

"Define 'Stars'!"

"Define 'West'!"

"I WIN!" *runs off drooling*
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar 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 4th December 2017, 04:13 PM   #438
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by Shalamar View Post
You know. If the flat earth model were, in fact, the correct one

There is no Flat (or Sphere) Earth 'model'. 'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science (SEE: Previous Post)




Quote:
we would be able to view all stars and constellations from pretty much anywhere in the world.

Really? Scientifically Validate please...

a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?



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 4th December 2017, 04:14 PM   #439
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Please respond with a 'Coherent' Substantive argument/position or consider this "Goodbye".
All ready done. Readers see your attempt at a victory for what it is, nothing.............

Troll score 2/10
__________________
"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; 4th December 2017 at 04:16 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 4th December 2017, 04:19 PM   #440
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Not only that, as the picture I attached in a previous post shows, the stars in the southern hemisphere circle the South Pole in a time lapse. Kinda hard to do if Antarctica is shmeared in every direction around a flat Earth.

There is no South Pole or South Celestial Pole...

"There is no "South Star". It's just a coincidence that there happens to be a bright star (Polaris) close to the Celestial North Pole. The Southern Hemisphere isn't so lucky. The only star that comes close is Sigma Octans, which is 1 degree away from the South Celestial Pole. But it's only 6th magnitude--too dim to see at all except under optimal conditions."
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/phy...r-intermediate

So


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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

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 01:42 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.