Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

You keep bringing religion into this as if it has any relevance to any of us. Desperation from the liar.

Very similar in terms of being coaxed into believing something which has no proof. An expected faith system.

Try doing an experiment scientifically for once instead of just looking at a bath of water and saying "yup that's flat".

You do the same.

 

[fyl2u]

Very similar in terms of being coaxed into believing something which has no proof. An expected faith system.

You do the same.

I have. You haven't. You're just a blinkered liar. Schooled by the idiots from the flat-earth society. Brainwashed. Parroting nonsense. Only ever giving arguments from authority, but using authorities that are as blinkered and brainwashed as yourself.

Very similar in terms of being coaxed into believing something which has no proof. An expected faith system.

You say that as if you think everyone you're arguing with believes in a god. I know I don't, and I suspect that most of the others that are arguing against you don't either.

Seems a pretty bizarre thing to keep bringing up, as if it means anything to anyone here.

Science leads us to change our beliefs based on observation and experiment. Religion leads us to cling to beliefs despite the evidence to the contrary. The only person in this thread who is clinging to their beliefs DESPITE the evidence against them is you.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Nukehasslefan said:
Water is flat and level at rest.
Water does not stay flat and level when poured around a ball. It's just basic logic.

So essentially you are saying “I think therefor it is”.

No. I think this applies to you.

You have a personal expectation of how the world should work, based on nothing but a pondering and then claim conspiracy and cover up when the rest of the world does not agree.

I don't need any alternate model to know the Earth is not a spinning globe.

That’s correct. But it’s also the equivalent of something else. Care to guess?

1 million millilitres?

 

[fyl2u]

Nukehasslefan said:
Water is flat and level at rest.

No it isn't, it follows a curve of 8 inches per mile squared, which is measurable if you have a suitable measuring device.

Water does not stay flat and level when poured around a ball. It's just basic logic.

It does when the centre of the ball is the net centre of gravity nearby. It's just basic logic.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

We have. Overnight I carried out 45 different experiments that proved the earth was an oblate spheroid, water isn't flat, space exists, gravity is real, earth orbits the sun, the moon orbits the earth, rockets work in a vacuum, and all right-angles are equal.

I'm not going to tell you what any of those experiments were. I suggest you start to do your own experiments to figure these things out for yourself.

Ok, fair enough.

Science leads us to change our beliefs based on observation and experiment.

If it means changing a belief then it wasn't factual in the first place.

Religion leads us to cling to beliefs despite the evidence to the contrary.

Same as global so called science.

The only person in this thread who is clinging to their beliefs DESPITE the evidence against them is you.

In your belief.

 

[fyl2u]

Ok, fair enough.


If it means changing a belief then it wasn't factual in the first place.

Same as global so called science.

In your belief.

Wrong

 

[nahwee]

What experiment did you carry out?

Give us just one.
There’s a group of people on this this thread that could replicate it and we could compare results.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

If it means changing a belief then it wasn't factual in the first place.

and the problem with that is...?
Science doesn't get all upset about having been proven wrong in the past.
If science were to discover some new information that changed the previously held beliefs, then science would tell the world and the beliefs could be changed and things better understood, adding to the collective knowledge.

Your system just wants to cling on to whatever nonsense it already believes in and resist any change, any advancement or improvement.

Science can back up its claims, you, and religion, cannot.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

and the problem with that is...?
Science doesn't get all upset about having been proven wrong in the past.If science were to discover some new information that changed the previously held beliefs, then science would tell the world and the beliefs could be changed and things better understood, adding to the collective knowledge.

Science is a word to describe reality. It cannot be proven wrong and would have no concept of being upset.

Your system just wants to cling on to whatever nonsense it already believes in and resist any change, any advancement or improvement.

My system is to question what I suspect to be pseudo-science told by those who pass themselves off as real scientists pertaining to that.

Science can back up its claims, you, and religion, cannot.

Science will always be correct. It's the people who pass off stories that are not realistic science, being the issue.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Science is a word to describe reality. It cannot be proven wrong and would have no concept of being upset.

My system is to question what I suspect to be pseudo-science told by those who pass themselves off as real scientists pertaining to that.

Science will always be correct. It's the people who pass off stories that are not realistic science, being the issue.

So it's science until someone tells you about it, and then it's bollocks because they're just repeating it?

Every single claim you have made for the non-globe is parrot fashion repeats of flat earth claims you've picked up from other flat earthers or YouTube videos.
You're not questioning anything, only denying. You're not doing experiments, only thinking about stuff. You're not seeking any truth, just doggedly clinging on to the story you have chosen and resisting any possibility of learning the truth.

 

[DaveH]

Why do you?

Because it's not only a feeling, it's observation.

I don't need them and you also have none to prove your globe.

Loads of proof but none that you accept or understand

So it's science until someone tells you about it, and then it's bollocks because they're just repeating it?

Every single claim you have made for the non-globe is parrot fashion repeats of flat earth claims you've picked up from other flat earthers or YouTube videos.
You're not questioning anything, only denying. You're not doing experiments, only thinking about stuff. You're not seeking any truth, just doggedly clinging on to the story you have chosen and resisting any possibility of learning the truth.

That pretty much sums it up. But add to that an auto repeat of no proof no proof no proof. A complete dismissal of everything offered as proof and even a refusal to admit the obvious when put in front of his face. Countless times this thread has put forward observations, then a working model and mathematics behind it that shows a globe, but fingrs in ears nah nah nah.

There are times he reminds me of the thick kid in the class at school. He only ever had one comeback “I know you are”. If you said he was an idiot, lame but it worked. But occasionally you would have him in some group work. “That is not right”, “I know you are”, “Eh what, Saturn is further out then Jupiter”, “I know you are”. The same thin every time.

But the thing is, it is not just this conspiracy theorist loon. If you go to other forums or comments on theor youtube instructional videos, it is all the same. Scream no proof no proof, makes no sense, and always if yoj have a bit of agreement, as soon as it leads onto potential dangerous ground, they back away in a sharp but often bizarre way. For example 100 pages ago now we learned that not all right angles are equal and therefore the earth is not a globe.

 

[payne]

and the problem with that is...?
Science doesn't get all upset about having been proven wrong in the past.
If science were to discover some new information that changed the previously held beliefs, then science would tell the world and the beliefs could be changed and things better understood, adding to the collective knowledge.

Your system just wants to cling on to whatever nonsense it already believes in and resist any change, any advancement or improvement.

Science can back up its claims, you, and religion, cannot.

exactly like traditional religion

 

[BigPete]

It may as well be because there's absolutely no physical proof of it.

Fuck sake man..

 

[Drifter]

Water is flat and level at rest

No it isn’t, as demonstrated elsewhere. The reason it looks flat in a bath, for example, is that the surface area is too small for the naked eye to observe the curvature. Except for the meniscus obviously…. Oh wait, is that water curving despite being at rest?

 

[BigPete]

Modern science is all about compartmentalisation. People working in science don’t share data, details, don’t write many papers, don’t present their work at conferences, don’t collaborate on projects formally between universities, government institutes and private business, along with informal relations too. There is no massive investment into large academic backbone networks designed to share masses of scientific data really quickly. That way the narrative can stick unhindered, as people are told which stories to follow. They don’t know the methods and can not disprove and are told to accept.

Except the above is complete and utter bollocks, with the exact opposite being true. The scientific community is all about sharing.

Meanwhile he claims to have done all sorts of experiments but with no method, list of equipment or results shared. All in complete secret. Without substance it can seem like bullshit. His model is the compartmentalisation and no proof method of what he claims the rest of the entire of science is.

Especially his experimental claims about rocket fuel in an extreme low pressure environment. Rocket fuel is not something you can come by easily, and there are many different types. To expel it from containers into a low pressure environment takes some extremely expensive and specialist equipment. There is some really nice stuff at my work, but nothing that could even come close to performing this. You are talking specialist licences and £50k budget for even the most basic experiments, not to mention a reasonably large lab. You can’t get this stuff in a standard shed.

Lets just say it doesn’t feel feasible that a private individual with no established scientific credentials and I’m guessing without a massive amount of disposable income, could even consider investigating this.

Though I am happy to be pointed to some budget compact ways of doing it.

What is it that you do for work mate?

 

[Nobby]

There is a vast pool of knowledge here some keen amateurs, some with scientific training and some working in science and engineering.
It would be interesting to see where people are on that scale to see the degree of expertise and critical thinking being dismissed.

I have a BSc (Hons) in microbiology but haven't worked as a scientist so would claim to be an experience but knowledgeable amateur these days

 

[fyl2u]

There is a vast pool of knowledge here some keen amateurs, some with scientific training and some working in science and engineering.
It would be interesting to see where people are on that scale to see the degree of expertise and critical thinking being dismissed.

I have a BSc (Hons) in microbiology but haven't worked as a scientist so would claim to be an experience but knowledgeable amateur these days

B.Sc. (hons) Music Technology,
A-level physics, maths (pure and applied) and computing

Working experience of:
Electronics
Electrical systems
Fluid dynamics
Acoustics, resonance, audio reflections and dampening, pinpoint accurate calibration of audio systems for top-level professional applications
Electromagnetism and calibration of electromechanical relays for power stations
Use of lasers for pinpoint accurate measuring of distances and angles
...and I taught maths for a while.

Amateur / enthusiast research of:
Most genuine scientific principles to some degree, but also greater detailed more specific reading into:
String theory
Quantum mechanics
Genetics and evolution

...amongst others

 

[BigPete]

B.Sc. (hons) Music Technology,
A-level physics, maths (pure and applied) and computing

Working experience of:
Electronics
Electrical systems
Fluid dynamics
Acoustics, resonance, audio reflections and dampening, pinpoint accurate calibration of audio systems for top-level professional applications
Electromagnetism and calibration of electromechanical relays for power stations
Use of lasers for pinpoint accurate measuring of distances and angles
...and I taught maths for a while.

Amateur / enthusiast research of:
Most genuine scientific principles to some degree, but also greater detailed more specific reading into:
String theory
Quantum mechanics
Genetics and evolution

...amongst others

May as well believe in the tooth fairy mate all pointless.

Just wait one day you will wake up.

 

[payne]

B.Sc. (hons) Music Technology,
A-level physics, maths (pure and applied) and computing

Working experience of:
Electronics
Electrical systems
Fluid dynamics
Acoustics, resonance, audio reflections and dampening, pinpoint accurate calibration of audio systems for top-level professional applications
Electromagnetism and calibration of electromechanical relays for power stations
Use of lasers for pinpoint accurate measuring of distances and angles
...and I taught maths for a while.

Amateur / enthusiast research of:
Most genuine scientific principles to some degree, but also greater detailed more specific reading into:
String theory
Quantum mechanics
Genetics and evolution

...amongst others

there's your problem

 

[legend7]

I believe your interest is really peaking.
I suggest you start to do your own experiments and figure out stuff for yourself.

I can't think of a single experiment that would show me there is a magic crystal generator where the north pole would be.
So what were your experiments that led you to this conclusion?
You said you'd done a few?

I have. You haven't. You're just a blinkered liar. Schooled by the idiots from the flat-earth society. Brainwashed. Parroting nonsense. Only ever giving arguments from authority, but using authorities that are as blinkered and brainwashed as yourself.


You say that as if you think everyone you're arguing with believes in a god. I know I don't, and I suspect that most of the others that are arguing against you don't either.

Seems a pretty bizarre thing to keep bringing up, as if it means anything to anyone here.

Science leads us to change our beliefs based on observation and experiment. Religion leads us to cling to beliefs despite the evidence to the contrary. The only person in this thread who is clinging to their beliefs DESPITE the evidence against them is you.

Exactly I can't recall any experiments or scientific papers proving any of the numerous gods actually exist.
And whilst different cultures and religions differ in their beliefs as to what God actually means they all agree that the earth isn't f***ing flat.