Is the earth flat?

[TitoFan]

Where in the natural world can we observe gas pressure being created without a container?

It's called science Tito, NASA is now even trying to give you an out. But the question still remains. What's the definition of gas pressure? Where in the physical and natural world can we observe and experiment with gas pressure being created without a container?

No it's not, Alpha. It's called parroting. I've given you the air pressure gradient explanation umpteen times and you continue to parrot the same question, as in hopes that if you ask it enough times without acknowledging the answers being given you, it will prove you right. Sort of like a grown-up version of holding your breath until you turn blue.

[Alpha]

Where in the natural world can we observe gas pressure being created without a container?

It's called science Tito, NASA is now even trying to give you an out. But the question still remains. What's the definition of gas pressure? Where in the physical and natural world can we observe and experiment with gas pressure being created without a container?

No it's not, Alpha. It's called parroting. I've given you the air pressure gradient explanation umpteen times and you continue to parrot the same question, as in hopes that if you ask it enough times without acknowledging the answers being given you, it will prove you right. Sort of like a grown-up version of holding your breath until you turn blue.

Just because you refuse to accept proven FACTS does not prove your assertions.

It's like when, after admitting that you hadn't studied spherical geometry, you continued to argue with me against the FACT that PI was not a constant and could change in spherical geometry.

You continue to mention air pressure, but refuse to accept the scientific FACT that the pressure of a gas is the force that the gas exerts on the walls of its container.

Now I know your ego or possibly the indoctrination will not let accept these FACTS, even though you can't prove your belief and assertions. You'll search far and wide to try and find an explanation/ definition that leaves out the word container, so it will fit your agenda. But the FACT is that Science is the study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. So to prove the claim of the globe, that we have a gaseous atmosphere, created without a container, it needs to be observed and experimented with in the the physical and natural world, proving that claim can actually occur. Otherwise it can't be scientifically proven.

I'll leave it there, I mean no offense to you, but you seem to suffer heavily from dunning kruger. I have seen you argue pointlessly with others (Fenster for example) over petty stuff, it's like an obsession that you need to be right, or maybe just your ego won't let things go. Unfortunately you can't argue against FACTS or objective reality. I hope you can realize the difference between a belief and a proven FACT, we all should be able to drop our beliefs in a heartbeat if new proven evidence/ information comes to our attention.

If someone came to me and was able to prove the globe claims I am disputing, using actual science, I would have no problem accepting the proven FACTS presented and happily accept the globe model. Unfortunately once you really start to research the model, going back to Eratosthenes, Aristarchus, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein etc you will find there was very little science involved, and more assumptions, assertions and equations, really pseudoscience. Don't take my word for it. Research it for yourself. Look up the first step in the scientific method, and the definition of science, then apply that to these guys' claims. It should become apparent pretty quickly.

[Fenster]

Holy fuck!!! Don't mention old Fenster!!! Tito doesn't need an excuse to blame me for everything and shift all his rage and frustration my way. Next i'll be reading i'm a flat-earther and he'll be threatening to beat me to death.

[TitoFan]

Don't forget the dead body pissing part.

[TitoFan]

Let's see..... that's 8 uses of the word "fact" in all caps and bolded.

Damn.... that does it. Alpha MUST be right.

Hey bro, no offense either. But I'm just alternating between trying to explain science to you..... doing a public service..... or just saying fuck it let's just poke fun at the man's beliefs.

[TitoFan]

For now I'm in the "poking fun" mode.


http://digg.com/video/destroying-flat-earth-arguments

[Alpha]

You don't have to explain science to me Tito, I understand it perfectly.



By all means poke fun, because you know you can't provide actual proof for your globe.

So you post a vid that doesn't have 1 proof for the globe?

It starts out by mentioning the Flat Earth Society and celebrities. I have already mentioned that they are disinformation agents. It's the main reason that Mark Sargent is always flashing his little disc model, it gives ball earthers something to attack, because they can't provide anything quantifiable for the globe.

Then he mentions pictures from space. But doesn't provide any scientific evidence that a gas can be created without a container, or where we can observe this occurrence in the natural world.



He also mentions 'live' satellite images, again without any any scientific evidence that a gas can be created without a container, or where we can observe this occurrence in the natural world. And I'll leave this vid so you can see how that's done:



He then invokes a red herring in talking about the sky. Tell me again how looking at the sky gives us anything quantifiable for the ground beneath our feet?

I lost interest after that, but did hear him mention that magic baller word 'gravity'. So tell me again where we observe mass attracting to mass in the natural word? And where Newton observed this originally in nature. An apple dropping right? I wonder how water runs down a mountain? Surely the mountain has more mass. You did't answer my previous question about the 2 substances of the same weight, would they both fall?

So did your vid provide any measurable curvature?

Did it provide scientific evidence that a gas can be created without a container, or where we can observe this occurrence in the natural world?

Did it provide scientific evidence of the motion of the earth?

Did it provide scientific evidence of mass attracting to mass in the natural world?

We both know the answer.