NASA says humans could land on Mars in 25 years

[Alpha]

I think it's only fair to post one of the many YouTube clips that totally debunk the Flat Earth theory. At least this one isn't 2 hours long.

Like I said, paid opposition. Not science man dan, Red, Wolfie, Soundly etc, all exposed.

[Alpha]

I would normally agree, I hate ad hominem, but what is your argument? Please tell me what scale, that you keep asking for, would do? Mine was way too small. Let’s recreate something the size of the universe then, and see if this holds up? This is a case where ad hominem is the only option

You showed a picture of a drop of water, I don't even know what to say to that. How is that any sort of scale model?

I'm still only on my first point, and not 1 person who believes in a globe, can show me in this reality, how water bends around the exterior of a shape, like it would on a globe. I haven't even mentioned the spinning. But we all know how water works in this reality. You can see this for yourself. But have been brain washed to believe that the properties of water change at a certain point.

All I keep hearing here is excuses as to why a scale model can't be done. But no one realizing the real reason for this. It's because it's not a reality.

Shall we move onto my 2nd request then?

How is it NOT an accurate depiction of a scale model? It’s what you were begging for.....

No it's not. Stop lying.

I asked for a scaled model of the earth, using the same substances, with water conforming to the exterior of a shape.

Are you claiming the earth is a drop of water?

[p4pking]

I would normally agree, I hate ad hominem, but what is your argument? Please tell me what scale, that you keep asking for, would do? Mine was way too small. Let’s recreate something the size of the universe then, and see if this holds up? This is a case where ad hominem is the only option

You showed a picture of a drop of water, I don't even know what to say to that. How is that any sort of scale model?

I'm still only on my first point, and not 1 person who believes in a globe, can show me in this reality, how water bends around the exterior of a shape, like it would on a globe. I haven't even mentioned the spinning. But we all know how water works in this reality. You can see this for yourself. But have been brain washed to believe that the properties of water change at a certain point.

All I keep hearing here is excuses as to why a scale model can't be done. But no one realizing the real reason for this. It's because it's not a reality.

Shall we move onto my 2nd request then?

How is it NOT an accurate depiction of a scale model? It’s what you were begging for.....

No it's not. Stop lying.

I asked for a scaled model of the earth, using the same substances, with water conforming to the exterior of a shape.

Are you claiming the earth is a drop of water?

That there is no possible way to create a scaled model of the earth is self evident for most, I would assume.

[TitoFan]

Don't mean to sound simplistic in the midst of this physics mumbo-jumbo..... but the "accepted" fact is that the Earth is spherically-shaped, even if it's an imperfect sphere. We're not living in the Middle Ages, when people feared falling off the edge. We've got planes and satellites that routinely orbit the Earth. There's literally tons of pictures taken from space (if that premise can be believed and accepted as fact, otherwise we're back to the elaborate studio conspiracy theory). Based on this, the onus is on the "Flat-Earthers" to prove the Earth is flat, not the other way around. And "proving" the Earth is flat will take more than some backyard experiments and trying to equate the behavior of a few gallons of water with the behavior of trillions and trillions of tons of water on a huge planet. Scaling does make a difference in experiments, whether some people want to accept it or not.

We'll here's 200 proofs to start with:

Wow. You spend countless pages and posts attempting to assign "science" to the Flat Earth thing, and then you post 200 "proofs" from one of the most ridiculed, owned men in America. So much, in fact, that he's listed in the "Encyclopedia of American Loons". Needless to say, I'm not going to spend 2 hours listening to the ramblings of someone with questionable credentials.

I did look for more info on Dubay, however, and found mostly people exposing him and his theories on YouTube.

Oh and by the way, the map he shows of the Flat Earth is identical to that shown on the clip I earlier posted of the Flat Earth Society Convention. You know, the one with the ice of Antarctica forming the outer edge of the disk you call Earth. So at least the Flat Earthers are consistent on what they think the Earth looks like.

I found interesting how Dubay and rest of the Flat Earthers try and explain the motion of the Sun relative to the Earth. All I have to say to that is....... WOW.

You ask for proof, I post a vid that has 200 and you don't want to watch?

Dubay is a genuine truther. Of course you are going to find people trying to debunk him, they are controlled opposition, and paid actors like Degrass Tyson.

I've already told/ showed you how water works in this reality. Again, if your claim is it does something different, then you I'd ask you to show me how it can conform to the exterior of a shape. I can show what I'm saying. Globe believers can't do the same.

Alpha, no offense, but many of his (cough) "proofs" are based on flat horizons and elevations that are minuscule when compared to the diameter of the Earth and it's subsequent curvature. What difference does it make what you observe when you're a few miles up and seeing a "flat" horizon? How do YOU explain plane trips around the world? Is this an elaborate conspiracy also? How do you circle the globe on an airplane if the Earth is truly flat? Wouldn't we have seen the "edge" of the world by now? Or wouldn't someone already have seen the "underside" of the Earth? I had already explained to you the fallacy of a disk hurtling through space, but you apparently even doubt the hurtling part. Maybe you think Earth is in some stationary celestial spot somewhere. Hell, I don't know. Maybe Truman was right?

[Alpha]

Don't mean to sound simplistic in the midst of this physics mumbo-jumbo..... but the "accepted" fact is that the Earth is spherically-shaped, even if it's an imperfect sphere. We're not living in the Middle Ages, when people feared falling off the edge. We've got planes and satellites that routinely orbit the Earth. There's literally tons of pictures taken from space (if that premise can be believed and accepted as fact, otherwise we're back to the elaborate studio conspiracy theory). Based on this, the onus is on the "Flat-Earthers" to prove the Earth is flat, not the other way around. And "proving" the Earth is flat will take more than some backyard experiments and trying to equate the behavior of a few gallons of water with the behavior of trillions and trillions of tons of water on a huge planet. Scaling does make a difference in experiments, whether some people want to accept it or not.

We'll here's 200 proofs to start with:

Wow. You spend countless pages and posts attempting to assign "science" to the Flat Earth thing, and then you post 200 "proofs" from one of the most ridiculed, owned men in America. So much, in fact, that he's listed in the "Encyclopedia of American Loons". Needless to say, I'm not going to spend 2 hours listening to the ramblings of someone with questionable credentials.

I did look for more info on Dubay, however, and found mostly people exposing him and his theories on YouTube.

Oh and by the way, the map he shows of the Flat Earth is identical to that shown on the clip I earlier posted of the Flat Earth Society Convention. You know, the one with the ice of Antarctica forming the outer edge of the disk you call Earth. So at least the Flat Earthers are consistent on what they think the Earth looks like.

I found interesting how Dubay and rest of the Flat Earthers try and explain the motion of the Sun relative to the Earth. All I have to say to that is....... WOW.

You ask for proof, I post a vid that has 200 and you don't want to watch?

Dubay is a genuine truther. Of course you are going to find people trying to debunk him, they are controlled opposition, and paid actors like Degrass Tyson.

I've already told/ showed you how water works in this reality. Again, if your claim is it does something different, then you I'd ask you to show me how it can conform to the exterior of a shape. I can show what I'm saying. Globe believers can't do the same.

Alpha, no offense, but many of his (cough) "proofs" are based on flat horizons and elevations that are minuscule when compared to the diameter of the Earth and it's subsequent curvature. What difference does it make what you observe when you're a few miles up and seeing a "flat" horizon? How do YOU explain plane trips around the world? Is this an elaborate conspiracy also? How do you circle the globe on an airplane if the Earth is truly flat? Wouldn't we have seen the "edge" of the world by now? Or wouldn't someone already have seen the "underside" of the Earth? I had already explained to you the fallacy of a disk hurtling through space, but you apparently even doubt the hurtling part. Maybe you think Earth is in some stationary celestial spot somewhere. Hell, I don't know. Maybe Truman was right?

Now you're thinking Tito, The Trueman Show and the Matrix could be closer to reality than we know.

Yea I do think we are stationary. And about the flat earth map, I'm not sure what you were trying to say. That is the commonly accepted speculated map. But I don't claim it to be a fact, just a possible representation.

About the horizon, and the experiment I posted before. Do you understand what I was trying to explain? If the horizon is level at a lower altitude, then on a ball as you rise up in altitude, the horizon has to drop below. It would be impossible for it to rise to your eye level.

You should research planes, on a ball, they would need to constantly dip the nose to adjust for the curvature. The argument from ballers is that the atmosphere is keeping it aligned with the curve, but then you get the same problem in reverse. They would need to have the rudders down just to fly in a straight line. Also the gyroscope in a plane never moves when flying straight for many miles, when it would have to be following the curve, or else fly out into nowhere.

And how does our pressurized atmosphere stay contained with no type of container? We know that in our reality, gas needs to be contained or it will float away. Oh and they tell you it's right beside a vacuum.

[Alpha]

I would normally agree, I hate ad hominem, but what is your argument? Please tell me what scale, that you keep asking for, would do? Mine was way too small. Let’s recreate something the size of the universe then, and see if this holds up? This is a case where ad hominem is the only option

You showed a picture of a drop of water, I don't even know what to say to that. How is that any sort of scale model?

I'm still only on my first point, and not 1 person who believes in a globe, can show me in this reality, how water bends around the exterior of a shape, like it would on a globe. I haven't even mentioned the spinning. But we all know how water works in this reality. You can see this for yourself. But have been brain washed to believe that the properties of water change at a certain point.

All I keep hearing here is excuses as to why a scale model can't be done. But no one realizing the real reason for this. It's because it's not a reality.

Shall we move onto my 2nd request then?

How is it NOT an accurate depiction of a scale model? It’s what you were begging for.....

No it's not. Stop lying.

I asked for a scaled model of the earth, using the same substances, with water conforming to the exterior of a shape.

Are you claiming the earth is a drop of water?

That there is no possible way to create a scaled model of the earth is self evident for most, I would assume.

So you want me to just believe you, when you can't show me what you believe to be true, and have never actually seen with your own eyes, but I can show you what water actually does in this reality.

I know it's hard but water destroys the globe.

[Gandalf]

If the earth was flat then surely you would reach an end rather than end up at the same place again if you keep on going long enough. There would have to be an end point rather than the ability to go round and round and end up in the same place. When Palin did Pole to Pole he pretty much documented the full journey. There was no end point where he fell off the earth. You can prove he did it by copying the journey yourself which others have tried to do. If the globe he used to illustrate his journey was cut up and laid flat he could not complete the journey without going back.

[walrus]

If the earth was flat then surely you would reach an end rather than end up at the same place again if you keep on going long enough. There would have to be an end point rather than the ability to go round and round and end up in the same place. When Palin did Pole to Pole he pretty much documented the full journey. There was no end point where he fell off the earth. You can prove he did it by copying the journey yourself which others have tried to do. If the globe he used to illustrate his journey was cut up and laid flat he could not complete the journey without going back.

Miles, don’t be dumb that would be circumnavigation which is impossible. When I go to China I like to take China air as it’s a quick trip, they fly over the North Pole, or that direction at least. The US deems that more risky and flys another direction which proves something I think.

[Gandalf]

If the earth was flat then surely you would reach an end rather than end up at the same place again if you keep on going long enough. There would have to be an end point rather than the ability to go round and round and end up in the same place. When Palin did Pole to Pole he pretty much documented the full journey. There was no end point where he fell off the earth. You can prove he did it by copying the journey yourself which others have tried to do. If the globe he used to illustrate his journey was cut up and laid flat he could not complete the journey without going back.

Miles, don’t be dumb that would be circumnavigation which is impossible. When I go to China I like to take China air as it’s a quick trip, they fly over the North Pole, or that direction at least. The US deems that more risky and flys another direction which proves something I think.

Ah, I am confused around the world in 80 days was the one around the entire globe. Clearly clever camera work and trickery. The Pole to Pole one would support Alpha as WHY WOULD HE NOT GO BACK UP THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE EARTH? There isn't one!

[Beanz]

Sorry Beanz, I didn't even read your post, I've told and shown you what water does in this reality. If you are disputing the natural physics of water, then it's on you to prove it. And for me to believe something to be true, I need to see it, be able to repeat it etc.

I know you can't scale it (doesn't that ring some alarm bells in your common sense?), but you will continue to believe water can conform to the exterior of a shape, even tho you can't demonstrate this claim to yourself. It's something you can't observe for yourself, so it's basically blind faith.

Enjoy your spinning ball.

This is you admitting defeat. You expect Tito to watch a two hour video and yet you fail to address any of the points I made that deconstruct the fallacy you have created. You have not even made an argument. You refused to start a thread, refused to define terms, ignored any accepted definition of empirical science after insisting on it, and then cited the example of the horizon which actually destroys your assertions.

Get a telescope and watch a ship disappear over the horizon. Not just fade out and become miniscule. Watch it sink like somebody descending over a hill. It is telling that you wish your world to be limited by the literal horizontal line at the furthest point your eyes can resolve. Stand on the shoulders of even 3rd century Greek astronomers and just like climbing a hill or watchtower because we are on a globe you will see further.

[Beanz]

I don't believe it, I know it to be the truth.

Ok so what part of water conforming to the exterior of a shape do you have for me to observe? That's part of the scientific method right? You should be able to demonstrate it right? Then I should be able to repeat it right?

We're talking about earth, and what is reality on this earth. If you claim water can conform around the exterior of a shape on earth, then show me, on earth with an observable recreation to back up your claims. I have no hypothesis, only my own observations and experiences. Which are demostrable and repeatable.

So what empirical evidence (observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic) do you have of a ball earth?

And the sciences are Natural, Formal and Social. And as I have already mentioned many times here, formal sciences are artificial man made languages.

Start a thread if you want, but we would need to agree on some first principles first, if we are going to continue to discuss it.

Like I said you are confirming an almost religious zeal in your believing 'in it' rather than the believing the facts themselves. You are pretending to be interested in empirical evidence but then dismissing all empirical evidence unless YOU witness it directly with your eyes. How unreliable would that be? You do things everyday that rely upon your ability to trust science built upon the foundation of others and yet want to play a game in which you pretend that is not true and that you are really a pioneer unlocking mysteries nobody else would dare contemplate. You are literally wishing for the impossible to justify the implausible. Scale itself, area, force, pressure, density are all inherent reasons why water stays on and around the earth and yet you want me to recreate this on a small scale as though i subscribe to the same nonsense and these factors are irrelevant. It is not scale-able.

And so what if formal science is a man made language? What would you prefer we converse in ..Hebrew? Sumarian? Tamil? Sanskrit? Despite what Chomsky says Language is actually a tool by which we can make a more complex reality, understand and describe the world and science is no different. You can start the thread and state the principles you think need to be agreed in your opening post.

This is the post you would not read.

[walrus]

I do wonder if alphito is trolling us. If not, I would like him to teach my children this interesting story

[walrus]

I don't believe it, I know it to be the truth.

Ok so what part of water conforming to the exterior of a shape do you have for me to observe? That's part of the scientific method right? You should be able to demonstrate it right? Then I should be able to repeat it right?

We're talking about earth, and what is reality on this earth. If you claim water can conform around the exterior of a shape on earth, then show me, on earth with an observable recreation to back up your claims. I have no hypothesis, only my own observations and experiences. Which are demostrable and repeatable.

So what empirical evidence (observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic) do you have of a ball earth?

And the sciences are Natural, Formal and Social. And as I have already mentioned many times here, formal sciences are artificial man made languages.

Start a thread if you want, but we would need to agree on some first principles first, if we are going to continue to discuss it.

Like I said you are confirming an almost religious zeal in your believing 'in it' rather than the believing the facts themselves. You are pretending to be interested in empirical evidence but then dismissing all empirical evidence unless YOU witness it directly with your eyes. How unreliable would that be? You do things everyday that rely upon your ability to trust science built upon the foundation of others and yet want to play a game in which you pretend that is not true and that you are really a pioneer unlocking mysteries nobody else would dare contemplate. You are literally wishing for the impossible to justify the implausible. Scale itself, area, force, pressure, density are all inherent reasons why water stays on and around the earth and yet you want me to recreate this on a small scale as though i subscribe to the same nonsense and these factors are irrelevant. It is not scale-able.

And so what if formal science is a man made language? What would you prefer we converse in ..Hebrew? Sumarian? Tamil? Sanskrit? Despite what Chomsky says Language is actually a tool by which we can make a more complex reality, understand and describe the world and science is no different. You can start the thread and state the principles you think need to be agreed in your opening post.

This is the post you would not read.

Of course @bffbeaner would mention Hebrew first

[Beanz]

I don't believe it, I know it to be the truth.

Ok so what part of water conforming to the exterior of a shape do you have for me to observe? That's part of the scientific method right? You should be able to demonstrate it right? Then I should be able to repeat it right?

We're talking about earth, and what is reality on this earth. If you claim water can conform around the exterior of a shape on earth, then show me, on earth with an observable recreation to back up your claims. I have no hypothesis, only my own observations and experiences. Which are demostrable and repeatable.

So what empirical evidence (observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic) do you have of a ball earth?

And the sciences are Natural, Formal and Social. And as I have already mentioned many times here, formal sciences are artificial man made languages.

Start a thread if you want, but we would need to agree on some first principles first, if we are going to continue to discuss it.

Like I said you are confirming an almost religious zeal in your believing 'in it' rather than the believing the facts themselves. You are pretending to be interested in empirical evidence but then dismissing all empirical evidence unless YOU witness it directly with your eyes. How unreliable would that be? You do things everyday that rely upon your ability to trust science built upon the foundation of others and yet want to play a game in which you pretend that is not true and that you are really a pioneer unlocking mysteries nobody else would dare contemplate. You are literally wishing for the impossible to justify the implausible. Scale itself, area, force, pressure, density are all inherent reasons why water stays on and around the earth and yet you want me to recreate this on a small scale as though i subscribe to the same nonsense and these factors are irrelevant. It is not scale-able.

And so what if formal science is a man made language? What would you prefer we converse in ..Hebrew? Sumarian? Tamil? Sanskrit? Despite what Chomsky says Language is actually a tool by which we can make a more complex reality, understand and describe the world and science is no different. You can start the thread and state the principles you think need to be agreed in your opening post.

This is the post you would not read.

Of course @bffbeaner would mention Hebrew first

I was being ALPHA ..betical and then could not deicide which alphabet to use

[Alpha]

Sorry Beanz, I didn't even read your post, I've told and shown you what water does in this reality. If you are disputing the natural physics of water, then it's on you to prove it. And for me to believe something to be true, I need to see it, be able to repeat it etc.

I know you can't scale it (doesn't that ring some alarm bells in your common sense?), but you will continue to believe water can conform to the exterior of a shape, even tho you can't demonstrate this claim to yourself. It's something you can't observe for yourself, so it's basically blind faith.

Enjoy your spinning ball.

This is you admitting defeat. You expect Tito to watch a two hour video and yet you fail to address any of the points I made that deconstruct the fallacy you have created. You have not even made an argument. You refused to start a thread, refused to define terms, ignored any accepted definition of empirical science after insisting on it, and then cited the example of the horizon which actually destroys your assertions.

Get a telescope and watch a ship disappear over the horizon. Not just fade out and become miniscule. Watch it sink like somebody descending over a hill. It is telling that you wish your world to be limited by the literal horizontal line at the furthest point your eyes can resolve. Stand on the shoulders of even 3rd century Greek astronomers and just like climbing a hill or watchtower because we are on a globe you will see further.

Still waiting on your empirical proof (based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic on your ball earth.

Can I ask what your definition of the horizon is? The problem is there are different meanings of what the horizon is. I think there's about 10 different meanings. Is it the line that divides the sky and the earth, is it the geometrical horizon, the astronomical horizon, the true horizon, and each one of the them has a different assumption. Right, the true horizon is based on the spherical earth, the geometric horizon assumes a flat plain, the astronomical one assumes that the fundamental plain is through the center of the eye (personally that's how I define it).

Now think for moment, if you see a ship disappear over the horizon, then fix that point. As you rise up, it would be impossible for the horizon to rise with you. Geometry dictates this. That point should continue to drop.

The claim that water can conform to the exterior of a shape like it does on a spinning globe, doesn't stand up to the scientific method. You can't observe it, you can provide a demonstrable experiment for me to repeat and confirm.

The steps of the scientific method go something like this:

Make an observation or observations.
Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science."