Is the earth flat?

[Beanz]

Ha ! Genius Miles you then disliked my post about your dislike.

So Miles, less of this and more of this eh?


I posted a Thom Yorke / Radiohead thing on the music thread specifically for you the other day and then you crawled back and disliked the tune below it

Anyway hello

[TitoFan]

https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/9/1...ony-flat-earth


This article seeks to explain the apparent, recent surge in flat Earth theorists. I found the following excerpts interesting:


"Also, the feeling of reading about a conspiracy theory is kind of like the sensation of watching Mr. Robot, says Mark Fenster, an expert in government transparency at the University of Florida law school and author of Conspiracy Theories: Secrets and Power in American Culture. That show, and the thrillers and mystery novels that preceded it, play with the idea that “you have a certain set of understandings and beliefs that you are taught and that you believe are true, but in fact, if you actually look closely at them and understand the truth of the matter, those beliefs are proven to be false. That is — in a fictional universe — extremely enticing and extremely exciting. It can be a source of fun.”
As for people who actually believe in flat Earth theory, Fenster says, you can’t really change their minds with photographic evidence or mathematical proof of a round Earth. To believe in a theory like this one, you have to go way, way past the normal threshold for questioning expertise and “hierarchies of intellectual knowledge.” It’s fun for us to have our perceptions pulled apart in fictional thrillers and mysteries, but we consider a narrative satisfying only when it also offers a way to put things back together. People who believe in flat Earth have already decided that the world around them can’t possibly be what it seems, and so a conspiracy theory becomes “a nice way of efficiently explaining what would otherwise be a confounding world,” Fenster says.

The flat Earth theory is spreading online, and it’s hard to tell where the joke begins or ends."


Admittedly, it IS difficult to tell where the joke begins or ends. When encountering a flat Earth theorist, it's normal to initially think it's a joke. If someone tells you 9/11 was faked, or that the Holocaust didn't happen, you tend to take him/her more seriously, because they're questioning historical events. You may not agree and get into arguments, but it's easier to take them seriously. But a flat Earther is tougher to initially take seriously. The normal reaction is "You're joking.... right?" Once you've established the person is serious, that's when the arguing begins. But the initial reaction might involve ridicule, which is what angers flat Earthers. Alpha tried to be equanimous in the beginning of this flat Earth argument, but has quickly regressed into hurling insults.

Here's another interesting excerpt from the article:


"Schimkowitz understands that flat Earth trutherism isn’t as immediately dangerous as climate change denialism or the anti-vaccine backlash, but that doesn’t mean it’s totally harmless. “I think it is important to maintain a level of concern about [conspiracy theorists],” he says. “They do things that harm society as a whole, like negate or dilute scientific reason. That’s something that’s having profound impact on everyone. Looking at climate change denialism, that comes from just doubting the idea of expertise as a whole. Conspiracy theorists attack expertise.”

Though Schimkowitz is speaking only to his experience with conspiracy theories on 4chan and Reddit, sociologist Ted Goertzel, who specializes in researching scientific conspiracy theories at Rutgers, told me almost the exact same thing. The basic goal of a conspiracy theorist, he says, isn’t usually to prove that one specific theory is true or false, but “to prove that nothing is provable, that all assertions are arbitrary.” He, too, sees an obvious case study in the recent election cycle, arguing that this is the type of thinking that leads people to believe that absolutely everything is “arbitrary and manipulative,” and that anything they don’t agree with is “fake news.”"



So to the argument that flat Earthers are generally harmless, there is the counter argument that they aren't totally harmless. They're compared to climate change deniers, and are correctly called out as "attacking expertise." Expertise which is, as opposed to many theorists themselves, achieved through long years of scientific studies and experimentation.

I still think it's a psychological malfunction.

[Gandalf]

Ha ! Genius Miles you then disliked my post about your dislike.

So Miles, less of this and more of this eh?


I posted a Thom Yorke / Radiohead thing on the music thread specifically for you the other day and then you crawled back and disliked the tune below it

Anyway hello

You have terrible taste in music. This is a better song than both of them.

[Alpha]

Sorry Tito, had to create a new post, we had too much in our previous re-quotes.

When you stare at the horizon, you do not look down, otherwise you would be staring at the ground. You stare out to the horizon, horizon meaning horizontal. Not down.

Ships disappear because of perspective, when you see railway tracks disappearing to a vanishing point, or street lights getting smaller the further they go away from you, or a hallway, they are no getting smaller or disappearing over curvature, they are moving away from you.

You can't say in 1 post that the earth is so big we can't see any curvature, and then in another that we see ships go over the horizon, which you claim is curvature. If you are at the beach and see a ship go over your claimed horizon, if you fix that point where you claim it's going over the curvature, then rise to a higher altitude and view the horizon from there, the horizon will rise to your eye level ( I have also done this experiment 3 times at different locations, using a level at both heights). Now geometry dictates that this is not possible on a sphere. If the point you are claiming to is the curvature (horizon) where the ships are disappearing, then at a higher altitude, it is impossible for that point to rise up to the observers eye level.

I was leaving water out for you. It's a globe killer for me. Are you denying the natural physics of water?

With my own 11 mile observations, yes there were some mountains and buildings, but the point is that under the right atmospheric conditions, I could see the beach on the opposite coast and also trees and bushes, that should have been hidden by the curvature. The point is that with these observations, is that you can do them yourself. You can observe, measure, test, and others can repeat them.

So we don't observe 'gravity' anywhere in nature and there is no experiment you can provide to show that it exists? Although when I provide you with the natural physics of water, you refuse to accept them?

I never claimed density was a force. I said this fall down because that s the only direction and things fall because they are dense. Things that are more dense will fall faster because the air around them can't support them.

The sun follows a solstice. The Babylonians were fantastic astrologers, even to the point of being able to predict eclipses. They also believed the earth to be flat. I believe the sun and moon move around the earth. And as I have said, aside from our physical senses, the science now seems to realizing this as well. We don't really know what these are, apart from what the agencies and less than 500 people are telling us. I admit there are some issues with some of the models, but in saying that there are also issues with the heliocentric model. From what I have researched, it works better on a flat plane. Also like I have said previously, looking at the sky gives us nothing quantifiable of the ground beneath our feet. You and I will never go to space, and will probably never know anyone who has. We also can't get up there to move around 3 dimensionally to see how it all works. So it's all really observation, nothing we can experiment with.

This video is a bit long, but it's very good for getting an understanding of the luminaries on a flat earth:



I have stated space is fake as it's being sold to us. The claim is that it's a vacuum, unlike anything we can recreate on earth. So my question to you is how do you create pressure (like our pressurized atmosphere) without some sort of surface, membrane, barrier, container, whatever you want to call it? I understand that we are taught that the air pressure is a gradient, but it's still a higher pressure, even at it's lowest point than a vacuum. Now the laws of thermal dynamics state that hot will go the cold, and higher energy will go to low. This is a fact, and again is observable in everyday nature. Example, your cup of hot coffee, the hot goes to out into the cold. You will never see a cold cup of coffee turn hot. So firstly you need to answer how you can create pressure without a surface, and then explain how a higher pressure (even at it's lowest, is still more than a vacuum) does no disperse into the lower area. And again, with your claim of gravity, it' something we don't observe in nature. And you can't provide an experiment that proves it? Think about it, gravity is considered a weak force, think of a static balloon lifting up paper clips for example, but it's strong enough to hold trillions of gallons of water to the surface of earth, but not strong enough to pull say a sand fly to the surface as well.

So we have no measurable or viewable curvature.

We know how the natural physics of water work in this reality.

We don't observe gravity in nature.

We can't create pressure without a surface.

A higher pressure will always move into a lower pressure.

There are quite few major flaws in the globe claims for me.

[TitoFan]

When you stare at the horizon, you do not look down, otherwise you would be staring at the ground. You stare out to the horizon, horizon meaning horizontal. Not down.

Please don't be patronizing. Otherwise we'll just go back to the insult-hurling you seem to enjoy. If I have to explain to you that there are certain degrees of "down" which can be broken down into infinitesimal portions of a degree, I'd rather really not continue this conversation.

Ships disappear because of perspective, when you see railway tracks disappearing to a vanishing point, or street lights getting smaller the further they go away from you, or a hallway, they are no getting smaller or disappearing over curvature, they are moving away from you.

You can't say in 1 post that the earth is so big we can't see any curvature, and then in another that we see ships go over the horizon, which you claim is curvature. If you are at the beach and see a ship go over your claimed horizon, if you fix that point where you claim it's going over the curvature, then rise to a higher altitude and view the horizon from there, the horizon will rise to your eye level ( I have also done this experiment 3 times at different locations, using a level at both heights). Now geometry dictates that this is not possible on a sphere. If the point you are claiming to is the curvature (horizon) where the ships are disappearing, then at a higher altitude, it is impossible for that point to rise up to the observers eye level.

A ship disappears over the horizon (or, if you prefer, just from view). If you were at the same spot, but then climbed up to a very tall building, you'd see that same ship you couldn't see from shore. Forget perspective. For every article that tries to explain that the Earth is flat and uses perspective to try and justify it, there's two others that use the same argument to debunk it. If the Earth was truly flat, you could use the most powerful telescopes available, and see the ship for hundreds and hundreds of miles. That won't happen, because of the curvature of the Earth. Speaking of visibility, I noticed you chose not to address my questioning your claim, or proof, of someone "seeing" mountains over 123 miles away as shown on an infrared video. I guess it's only YOU who can demand proof and question others assertions, but it doesn't work the other way around.

I never claimed density was a force. I said this fall down because that s the only direction and things fall because they are dense. Things that are more dense will fall faster because the air around them can't support them.

What does this even MEAN, Alpha?? Trying not to answer your condescension with my own, but it's quite tempting. For a self-avowed scholar, you certainly have a way with words. I'm not quite sure you're all that knowledgeable about forces, gravity, or acceleration, but we'll just leave it at that.

The sun follows a solstice. The Babylonians were fantastic astrologers, even to the point of being able to predict eclipses. They also believed the earth to be flat. I believe the sun and moon move around the earth. And as I have said, aside from our physical senses, the science now seems to realizing this as well. We don't really know what these are, apart from what the agencies and less than 500 people are telling us. I admit there are some issues with some of the models, but in saying that there are also issues with the heliocentric model. From what I have researched, it works better on a flat plane. Also like I have said previously, looking at the sky gives us nothing quantifiable of the ground beneath our feet. You and I will never go to space, and will probably never know anyone who has. We also can't get up there to move around 3 dimensionally to see how it all works. So it's all really observation, nothing we can experiment with.

Here's where it all falls apart for you. Once again, you DEMAND proof that water cannot possible adhere to a spinning globe..... but yet you spew forth a paragraph full of "black magic" and conjecture. Let's break it apart sentence by sentence.

"The sun follows a solstice." You look up the definition of "solstice" in the dictionary and there's nothing..... NOTHING.... that attaches it to a flat Earth theory.

"We really don't know what these are...." Oh wait a goddamn minute there. You mean to tell me you're gonna sit there and ridicule those who don't believe you, demanding proof of every single accepted scientific fact, only to turn around and tell us you "really don't know what these are"??!?? No bro..... you're not getting off the hook THAT easy.

"I admit there are some issues with some of the models...."

"From what I've researched, it works better on a flat plane."

"So it's really all observation, nothing we can experiment with."


I think I'm finally getting the gist of all this. In other words, WE are supposed to experiment and provide PROOF of OUR beliefs so that YOU'LL be satisfied..... but YOU can spew forth black magic, conjecture, and claim some things cannot be experimented with..... and THAT'S ok.

Got it.

I have stated space is fake as it's being sold to us. The claim is that it's a vacuum, unlike anything we can recreate on earth. So my question to you is how do you create pressure (like our pressurized atmosphere) without some sort of surface, membrane, barrier, container, whatever you want to call it? I understand that we are taught that the air pressure is a gradient, but it's still a higher pressure, even at it's lowest point than a vacuum. Now the laws of thermal dynamics state that hot will go the cold, and higher energy will go to low. This is a fact, and again is observable in everyday nature. Example, your cup of hot coffee, the hot goes to out into the cold. You will never see a cold cup of coffee turn hot. So firstly you need to answer how you can create pressure without a surface, and then explain how a higher pressure (even at it's lowest, is still more than a vacuum) does no disperse into the lower area. And again, with your claim of gravity, it' something we don't observe in nature. And you can't provide an experiment that proves it? Think about it, gravity is considered a weak force, think of a static balloon lifting up paper clips for example, but it's strong enough to hold trillions of gallons of water to the surface of earth, but not strong enough to pull say a sand fly to the surface as well.

I already explained this to you, but it doesn't matter, because you don't believe in gravity. If you don't believe in gravity, there is no point in my telling you about gravity holding the atmosphere to the Earth's surface, and that the pressure gradient as you go up in altitude makes perfect sense, until you get to the point where the pressure is negligible, and beyond that you've got increasing degrees of vacuum. Vacuum, by the way, is also a continuum. You don't go from positive air pressure to OOPS..... all of a sudden a perfect vacuum. For that, yes... you need a barrier.



Anyway, this has been rather pointless, to say the least. It degraded into insult-hurling, which I decided to stop, and can easily spiral back downward, which I won't be a part of. A word of advice. Lose the condescending, patronizing attitude and you'll avoid a lot of grief. Also, if you'd like to continue with the double standards (we have to submit proof..... you don't), then at least try to do so in a less transparent manner.

[TitoFan]

https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.c...r-horizon.html


A blogger uses a ship at sea to prove the Earth's curvature. A Flat Earther smugly comments to the contrary and then gets summarily

Happens on a daily basis.

[walrus]

When you stare at the horizon, you do not look down, otherwise you would be staring at the ground. You stare out to the horizon, horizon meaning horizontal. Not down.

Please don't be patronizing. Otherwise we'll just go back to the insult-hurling you seem to enjoy. If I have to explain to you that there are certain degrees of "down" which can be broken down into infinitesimal portions of a degree, I'd rather really not continue this conversation.

Ships disappear because of perspective, when you see railway tracks disappearing to a vanishing point, or street lights getting smaller the further they go away from you, or a hallway, they are no getting smaller or disappearing over curvature, they are moving away from you.

You can't say in 1 post that the earth is so big we can't see any curvature, and then in another that we see ships go over the horizon, which you claim is curvature. If you are at the beach and see a ship go over your claimed horizon, if you fix that point where you claim it's going over the curvature, then rise to a higher altitude and view the horizon from there, the horizon will rise to your eye level ( I have also done this experiment 3 times at different locations, using a level at both heights). Now geometry dictates that this is not possible on a sphere. If the point you are claiming to is the curvature (horizon) where the ships are disappearing, then at a higher altitude, it is impossible for that point to rise up to the observers eye level.

A ship disappears over the horizon (or, if you prefer, just from view). If you were at the same spot, but then climbed up to a very tall building, you'd see that same ship you couldn't see from shore. Forget perspective. For every article that tries to explain that the Earth is flat and uses perspective to try and justify it, there's two others that use the same argument to debunk it. If the Earth was truly flat, you could use the most powerful telescopes available, and see the ship for hundreds and hundreds of miles. That won't happen, because of the curvature of the Earth. Speaking of visibility, I noticed you chose not to address my questioning your claim, or proof, of someone "seeing" mountains over 123 miles away as shown on an infrared video. I guess it's only YOU who can demand proof and question others assertions, but it doesn't work the other way around.

I never claimed density was a force. I said this fall down because that s the only direction and things fall because they are dense. Things that are more dense will fall faster because the air around them can't support them.

What does this even MEAN, Alpha?? Trying not to answer your condescension with my own, but it's quite tempting. For a self-avowed scholar, you certainly have a way with words. I'm not quite sure you're all that knowledgeable about forces, gravity, or acceleration, but we'll just leave it at that.

The sun follows a solstice. The Babylonians were fantastic astrologers, even to the point of being able to predict eclipses. They also believed the earth to be flat. I believe the sun and moon move around the earth. And as I have said, aside from our physical senses, the science now seems to realizing this as well. We don't really know what these are, apart from what the agencies and less than 500 people are telling us. I admit there are some issues with some of the models, but in saying that there are also issues with the heliocentric model. From what I have researched, it works better on a flat plane. Also like I have said previously, looking at the sky gives us nothing quantifiable of the ground beneath our feet. You and I will never go to space, and will probably never know anyone who has. We also can't get up there to move around 3 dimensionally to see how it all works. So it's all really observation, nothing we can experiment with.

Here's where it all falls apart for you. Once again, you DEMAND proof that water cannot possible adhere to a spinning globe..... but yet you spew forth a paragraph full of "black magic" and conjecture. Let's break it apart sentence by sentence.

"The sun follows a solstice." You look up the definition of "solstice" in the dictionary and there's nothing..... NOTHING.... that attaches it to a flat Earth theory.

"We really don't know what these are...." Oh wait a goddamn minute there. You mean to tell me you're gonna sit there and ridicule those who don't believe you, demanding proof of every single accepted scientific fact, only to turn around and tell us you "really don't know what these are"??!?? No bro..... you're not getting off the hook THAT easy.

"I admit there are some issues with some of the models...."

"From what I've researched, it works better on a flat plane."

"So it's really all observation, nothing we can experiment with."


I think I'm finally getting the gist of all this. In other words, WE are supposed to experiment and provide PROOF of OUR beliefs so that YOU'LL be satisfied..... but YOU can spew forth black magic, conjecture, and claim some things cannot be experimented with..... and THAT'S ok.

Got it.

I have stated space is fake as it's being sold to us. The claim is that it's a vacuum, unlike anything we can recreate on earth. So my question to you is how do you create pressure (like our pressurized atmosphere) without some sort of surface, membrane, barrier, container, whatever you want to call it? I understand that we are taught that the air pressure is a gradient, but it's still a higher pressure, even at it's lowest point than a vacuum. Now the laws of thermal dynamics state that hot will go the cold, and higher energy will go to low. This is a fact, and again is observable in everyday nature. Example, your cup of hot coffee, the hot goes to out into the cold. You will never see a cold cup of coffee turn hot. So firstly you need to answer how you can create pressure without a surface, and then explain how a higher pressure (even at it's lowest, is still more than a vacuum) does no disperse into the lower area. And again, with your claim of gravity, it' something we don't observe in nature. And you can't provide an experiment that proves it? Think about it, gravity is considered a weak force, think of a static balloon lifting up paper clips for example, but it's strong enough to hold trillions of gallons of water to the surface of earth, but not strong enough to pull say a sand fly to the surface as well.

I already explained this to you, but it doesn't matter, because you don't believe in gravity. If you don't believe in gravity, there is no point in my telling you about gravity holding the atmosphere to the Earth's surface, and that the pressure gradient as you go up in altitude makes perfect sense, until you get to the point where the pressure is negligible, and beyond that you've got increasing degrees of vacuum. Vacuum, by the way, is also a continuum. You don't go from positive air pressure to OOPS..... all of a sudden a perfect vacuum. For that, yes... you need a barrier.



Anyway, this has been rather pointless, to say the least. It degraded into insult-hurling, which I decided to stop, and can easily spiral back downward, which I won't be a part of. A word of advice. Lose the condescending, patronizing attitude and you'll avoid a lot of grief. Also, if you'd like to continue with the double standards (we have to submit proof..... you don't), then at least try to do so in a less transparent manner.

I would ask that you continue. As beanz pointed out previous this place has been lame since beanz ban was lifted. We need to step up the interactions

[TitoFan]

When you stare at the horizon, you do not look down, otherwise you would be staring at the ground. You stare out to the horizon, horizon meaning horizontal. Not down.

Please don't be patronizing. Otherwise we'll just go back to the insult-hurling you seem to enjoy. If I have to explain to you that there are certain degrees of "down" which can be broken down into infinitesimal portions of a degree, I'd rather really not continue this conversation.

Ships disappear because of perspective, when you see railway tracks disappearing to a vanishing point, or street lights getting smaller the further they go away from you, or a hallway, they are no getting smaller or disappearing over curvature, they are moving away from you.

You can't say in 1 post that the earth is so big we can't see any curvature, and then in another that we see ships go over the horizon, which you claim is curvature. If you are at the beach and see a ship go over your claimed horizon, if you fix that point where you claim it's going over the curvature, then rise to a higher altitude and view the horizon from there, the horizon will rise to your eye level ( I have also done this experiment 3 times at different locations, using a level at both heights). Now geometry dictates that this is not possible on a sphere. If the point you are claiming to is the curvature (horizon) where the ships are disappearing, then at a higher altitude, it is impossible for that point to rise up to the observers eye level.

A ship disappears over the horizon (or, if you prefer, just from view). If you were at the same spot, but then climbed up to a very tall building, you'd see that same ship you couldn't see from shore. Forget perspective. For every article that tries to explain that the Earth is flat and uses perspective to try and justify it, there's two others that use the same argument to debunk it. If the Earth was truly flat, you could use the most powerful telescopes available, and see the ship for hundreds and hundreds of miles. That won't happen, because of the curvature of the Earth. Speaking of visibility, I noticed you chose not to address my questioning your claim, or proof, of someone "seeing" mountains over 123 miles away as shown on an infrared video. I guess it's only YOU who can demand proof and question others assertions, but it doesn't work the other way around.

I never claimed density was a force. I said this fall down because that s the only direction and things fall because they are dense. Things that are more dense will fall faster because the air around them can't support them.

What does this even MEAN, Alpha?? Trying not to answer your condescension with my own, but it's quite tempting. For a self-avowed scholar, you certainly have a way with words. I'm not quite sure you're all that knowledgeable about forces, gravity, or acceleration, but we'll just leave it at that.

The sun follows a solstice. The Babylonians were fantastic astrologers, even to the point of being able to predict eclipses. They also believed the earth to be flat. I believe the sun and moon move around the earth. And as I have said, aside from our physical senses, the science now seems to realizing this as well. We don't really know what these are, apart from what the agencies and less than 500 people are telling us. I admit there are some issues with some of the models, but in saying that there are also issues with the heliocentric model. From what I have researched, it works better on a flat plane. Also like I have said previously, looking at the sky gives us nothing quantifiable of the ground beneath our feet. You and I will never go to space, and will probably never know anyone who has. We also can't get up there to move around 3 dimensionally to see how it all works. So it's all really observation, nothing we can experiment with.

Here's where it all falls apart for you. Once again, you DEMAND proof that water cannot possible adhere to a spinning globe..... but yet you spew forth a paragraph full of "black magic" and conjecture. Let's break it apart sentence by sentence.

"The sun follows a solstice." You look up the definition of "solstice" in the dictionary and there's nothing..... NOTHING.... that attaches it to a flat Earth theory.

"We really don't know what these are...." Oh wait a goddamn minute there. You mean to tell me you're gonna sit there and ridicule those who don't believe you, demanding proof of every single accepted scientific fact, only to turn around and tell us you "really don't know what these are"??!?? No bro..... you're not getting off the hook THAT easy.

"I admit there are some issues with some of the models...."

"From what I've researched, it works better on a flat plane."

"So it's really all observation, nothing we can experiment with."


I think I'm finally getting the gist of all this. In other words, WE are supposed to experiment and provide PROOF of OUR beliefs so that YOU'LL be satisfied..... but YOU can spew forth black magic, conjecture, and claim some things cannot be experimented with..... and THAT'S ok.

Got it.

I have stated space is fake as it's being sold to us. The claim is that it's a vacuum, unlike anything we can recreate on earth. So my question to you is how do you create pressure (like our pressurized atmosphere) without some sort of surface, membrane, barrier, container, whatever you want to call it? I understand that we are taught that the air pressure is a gradient, but it's still a higher pressure, even at it's lowest point than a vacuum. Now the laws of thermal dynamics state that hot will go the cold, and higher energy will go to low. This is a fact, and again is observable in everyday nature. Example, your cup of hot coffee, the hot goes to out into the cold. You will never see a cold cup of coffee turn hot. So firstly you need to answer how you can create pressure without a surface, and then explain how a higher pressure (even at it's lowest, is still more than a vacuum) does no disperse into the lower area. And again, with your claim of gravity, it' something we don't observe in nature. And you can't provide an experiment that proves it? Think about it, gravity is considered a weak force, think of a static balloon lifting up paper clips for example, but it's strong enough to hold trillions of gallons of water to the surface of earth, but not strong enough to pull say a sand fly to the surface as well.

I already explained this to you, but it doesn't matter, because you don't believe in gravity. If you don't believe in gravity, there is no point in my telling you about gravity holding the atmosphere to the Earth's surface, and that the pressure gradient as you go up in altitude makes perfect sense, until you get to the point where the pressure is negligible, and beyond that you've got increasing degrees of vacuum. Vacuum, by the way, is also a continuum. You don't go from positive air pressure to OOPS..... all of a sudden a perfect vacuum. For that, yes... you need a barrier.



Anyway, this has been rather pointless, to say the least. It degraded into insult-hurling, which I decided to stop, and can easily spiral back downward, which I won't be a part of. A word of advice. Lose the condescending, patronizing attitude and you'll avoid a lot of grief. Also, if you'd like to continue with the double standards (we have to submit proof..... you don't), then at least try to do so in a less transparent manner.

I would ask that you continue. As beanz pointed out previous this place has been lame since beanz ban was lifted. We need to step up the interactions

Can we pick something more rooted in reality? How about nonbinary? That topic will always be good for a spirited tussle.

[Alpha]

Tito I wasn't trying to be patronizing. Only stating that when looking out across to the horizon, I myself tend to look straight ahead. If you look down at any other angle than level, that's fine, but it makes it very hard to measure and record the angle you are looking at. When I make my observations with my camera I use a level and a tube, so I can accurately measure that it is actually level across the water of ground.

We'll have to agree to disagree on perspective. Although I disagree that it has been debunked. As you get higher you are changing the angle you are viewing from. Think about the experiment I mentioned, where you place your camera on the ground of say a football field or warehouse floor, then get someone to walk away from it. You will see them disappearing from the bottom up. Now we know they are not going over any curve, just out of our perspective. If you started rising the camera up, you will see more of the person comes back into view.

We can only see so far. Even with camera's or telescopes. Plus you need to add in things like the atmosphere and also things in the way. Stand out on your street and try to see 3 or 4 streets over. You will generally have other houses or trees in the way making that very difficult. It's the same with the earth. It has hills and valleys, plus the atmosphere, that makes it only possible to see so far.

You claimed we couldn't use the vids the show infrared footage over a 123 distance. So I left it out, because, you are right, I hadn't done that particular experiment myself. But I have done my own experiments and observations over the 11 mile distance, where I can see things that should be hidden by curvature. And again, you can go out and do some of these observations for yourself. You don't have to take my word for it. You can actually try and test and repeat your own observations. Real empirical evidence you can produce yourself.

You also failed to address that you claimed the earth is so big that we can't see any curvature in one post, but are able to see it going over the horizon at what 20 odd miles I think you said. And the fact that if you fixed that point where you claim it's the curvature the boat is going over, and went to a higher altitude, that that point couldn't rise up to your eye level, as the horizon does, because as geometry dictates, that point you claiming is curving, would continue to curve down, making it impossible for the horizon to rise to your eye level. I have mentioned this experiment before. I have done it myself at different locations.

Things fall because they are dense, is all it means. I can't explain that any simpler. We know what density is. And it's quantifiable. Basically the air particles can't support things that are denser than the air surrounding it, so the fall through the air to the ground. I know they fall at 9.81 m/s, but it has nothing to do with gravity, it's all about the density of an object.

If you want to claim that I can't use vids because I haven't done the experiments for myself, then the same goes for you and the luminaries. Have you been into the sky with the planets, sun and moon? The truth is we really have no idea what they are. Looking at them through a good quality telescopes, they look like pulsing lights, nothing like the CGI that NASA and other space agencies are selling you. And again, take a look for yourself, and see if what you are seeing is the same as what you are being presented. You don't have to take my word for it.

And yes, from my observations, the luminaries seem to work better on a flat plane, for example all the star trails circling Polaris, you can time lapse this for yourself. The fact that if we were hurtling through space, we should be seeing different stars every 6 months or so. But the fact remains, looking at the sky gives us nothing quantifiable for the ground beneath our feet.

Ok so can you give me 1 practical example of gravity holding our atmosphere to the earth?

Also a practical example of a gradient vacuum, beside a gradient air pressure?

You also failed to address how you can create pressure without a barrier of some sort.

I'm not sure why you are taking things so personally. I am only challenging the claims of the globe.

We are talking about objective reality.

You yourself have admitted that you can't give me a practical example of gravity. We don't observe mass attracting mass anywhere in nature.

We know we need a barrier or container to create pressure.

There is no measurable curvature.

The motion of the earth has never been detected.

We know how the natural physics of water work, and that it can't conform to the exterior of a shape.

You decide to stop throwing insults, after throwing the last insults. I was the 1 that took the higher road. I'm not sure what you mean by double standards. You can't accept my word or vids, but you can test these for yourself. Again I don't see how looking the the sky gives us anything measurable of the claimed curvature, or motion, or shows how water can conform to the exterior of a shape, or shows how we can have a pressurized system without a barrier.

You claim stuff to be scientific fact, all I'm asking is for it to be shown how they proved it. Remember the sciences. Reality was here before language. The formal sciences are a tool only. Did they use demonstrable, observable, testable, repeatable experiments to prove these things? If so then all I'm asking is to be shown these. I think you'll find they didn't. We don't observe mass attracting to mass in nature, so I would like to see the experiment that proves this. What demonstrable, observable, testable, repeatable experiment did Einstein use to disprove the ether, for his theory of relativity to work?

I couldn't care less if you wanted to continue or not. I never wanted to start this thread, but since it's here I'll post information, in case someone else is curious about the claims of the globe. As I have mentioned, Youtube and Google are already censoring the subject, and it can be hard to find relevant information.

Like I have said from the beginning, I'm not trying to convince anyone, just posting what I know to be true from actual Natural scientific experiments.

[Beanz]

Ha ! Genius Miles you then disliked my post about your dislike.

So Miles, less of this and more of this eh?


I posted a Thom Yorke / Radiohead thing on the music thread specifically for you the other day and then you crawled back and disliked the tune below it

Anyway hello

You have terrible taste in music. This is a better song than both of them.

I hate Muse but horses for courses. I know i have dined out on it for years and I am pretty sure I mentioned it before but in the early 1990's because they are from up the road they supported the Band/Collective I was in at the time in Plymouth. From the green room upstairs we could hear how tight they were, but fuck me they very derivative even back then. They went before we played too which was pretty bad form. Nobs (: Anyway they have got technically even better but creatively much worse

[walrus]

So our opposing party fighting the evil trump are working on some great legislation.

The 'Green New Deal,' an ambitious package of environmental ideas proposed Thursday by Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, is a House resolution just 14 pages in length that suggests a framework for future policy.

Included in its wish-list are a transition to 100 per cent electric cars and replacing all airplane travel with high-speed trains.

'That would be pretty hard for Hawaii,' Sen. Mazie Hirono, from the Aloha State, said Thursday.

The Obamacare law was 2,300 pages long when Congress passed it in 2010. Thursday's effort, although already backed by 60 House Democrats, would be non-binding if it passes.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dai...structure.html

The article goes on to say

Markey and Ocasio-Cortez wrote that they 'are calling for a full transition off fossil fuels and zero greenhouse gases.'

They acknowledge the difficulty with achieving a 'zero emissions' society in just 10 years, 'because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.'

All cows emit methane in their flatulence; 'getting rid of farting cows' suggests geting rid of all beef.


@Master or @Spicoli sorry but I meant to put this in the today in trump thread. Is it possible you guys or any mod could move this to it’s rightful place. If not I’ll redo it

[Beanz]

So our opposing party fighting the evil trump are working on some great legislation.

The 'Green New Deal,' an ambitious package of environmental ideas proposed Thursday by Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, is a House resolution just 14 pages in length that suggests a framework for future policy.

Included in its wish-list are a transition to 100 per cent electric cars and replacing all airplane travel with high-speed trains.

'That would be pretty hard for Hawaii,' Sen. Mazie Hirono, from the Aloha State, said Thursday.

The Obamacare law was 2,300 pages long when Congress passed it in 2010. Thursday's effort, although already backed by 60 House Democrats, would be non-binding if it passes.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dai...structure.html

The article goes on to say

Markey and Ocasio-Cortez wrote that they 'are calling for a full transition off fossil fuels and zero greenhouse gases.'

They acknowledge the difficulty with achieving a 'zero emissions' society in just 10 years, 'because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.'

All cows emit methane in their flatulence; 'getting rid of farting cows' suggests geting rid of all beef.


@Master or @Spicoli sorry but I meant to put this in the today in trump thread. Is it possible you guys or any mod could move this to it’s rightful place. If not I’ll redo it

Ha! I love it when you double post stuff mate





and then in the wrong thread too

[walrus]

So our opposing party fighting the evil trump are working on some great legislation.

The 'Green New Deal,' an ambitious package of environmental ideas proposed Thursday by Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, is a House resolution just 14 pages in length that suggests a framework for future policy.

Included in its wish-list are a transition to 100 per cent electric cars and replacing all airplane travel with high-speed trains.

'That would be pretty hard for Hawaii,' Sen. Mazie Hirono, from the Aloha State, said Thursday.

The Obamacare law was 2,300 pages long when Congress passed it in 2010. Thursday's effort, although already backed by 60 House Democrats, would be non-binding if it passes.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dai...structure.html

The article goes on to say

Markey and Ocasio-Cortez wrote that they 'are calling for a full transition off fossil fuels and zero greenhouse gases.'

They acknowledge the difficulty with achieving a 'zero emissions' society in just 10 years, 'because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.'

All cows emit methane in their flatulence; 'getting rid of farting cows' suggests geting rid of all beef.


@Master or @Spicoli sorry but I meant to put this in the today in trump thread. Is it possible you guys or any mod could move this to it’s rightful place. If not I’ll redo it

Ha! I love it when you double post stuff mate





and then in the wrong thread too

thanks I love you to pal but unlike u I do make mistakes