Boxing Forums


.



User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  7
Likes Likes:  162
Dislikes Dislikes:  11
Page 11 of 46 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 680

Thread: Is the earth flat?

Share/Bookmark
  1. #151
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    20,377
    Mentioned
    441 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1636
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Also offer reasonable alternatives to explain gravity, or whatever name the flat earthers want to give that force that keeps us grounded. At least the sphere has a center point, from which the entire surface is perpendicular. Thus, everything falls straight down. A flat earth keeps us grounded.... how? Where is this pull coming from? A bunch of parallel lines across the surface of the Earth? The sphere makes more sense as far as gravity pull is concerned.

    Offer reasonable alternatives to explain night and day and how the division moves across the Earth. Flat Earthers explain it with a sun that circles above the Earth, lighting areas as it passes overhead. What forces keep the sun rotating in such a manner? Why are some areas dark if the sun is always above the surface of the Earth? Again, the sphere model explains night and day much better.

    The Flat Earthers main beef is the water staying on a curved planet. A spinning ball. Saying that gravity holds the water against the surface just doesn't cut it. They use micro experiments to try and explain a macro phenomenon. I think that's flawed, but no one will ever convince Flat Earthers otherwise.

    Here's the deal.

    Round Earthers probably shouldn't ridicule Flat Earthers for their opinions. But the opposite holds true as well. Alpha saying he KNOWS the Earth is flat, while the rest of us can only THINK the Earth is round, is tantamount to ridicule and dismissal. This sets off the whole back-and-forth, enough of which we've had on plenty of other subjects. News flash: Not everyone that believes the Earth is round is a sheep, believing whatever they tell us. There is plenty of logical arguments for a round Earth.... just depends on the color of the glass through which you look at it.

    Said this before and I'll say it again. Someone comes at you with a 9/11 conspiracy theory, and you believe they're being serious right away. So the argument begins right away. With Flat Earthers, it's so odd to the rest of us, that the initial reaction is one of... "You're joking, right?" When it becomes apparent they're not, that's when the insults start flying and everything goes downhill from there (and keeps on rolling until it disappears over the curvature of the Earth). We can hardly be blamed for the initial reactions.

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    This Lunatic Asylum
    Posts
    22,905
    Mentioned
    399 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    2820
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beanz View Post
    Oh and in case you did not notice. I started this thread because he refused to and very early in it expressed dismay that he had apparently been threatened.
    And Alphs's avatar ?
    I am sure it is just a coincidence ...Not
    but it is the flag of the National Fascist party under Mussolini
    So he knows exactly what he is doing and all the talk of being rare as Unicorns is bullshit.
    Interesting, never realised that, thought it was something from GoT or that playstation game you all love.

    There's a reason Neil deGrasse Tyson refuses to debate flat-earthers and likewise Dawkins won't entertain creationists (and a reason flat-earthers believe they're paid up government liars). I'm probably a little naive but if holocaust deniers/fascists really expected to be taken seriously surely they wouldn't express the belief in every conspiracy known to man? Surely that separates them from David Irving types?

    Tito and Alpha never had a bad word on the boxing forum. Now look at them? I knew where it was heading that's all. Now I have no problem with the "insults" as long as they're enjoying themselves and nobody starts crying about bans and reporting posts
    3-Time SADDO PREDICTION COMP CHAMPION.

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    6,628
    Mentioned
    158 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    239
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beanz View Post
    Alpha you can't even agree on what the 'Official Narrative' is. Your are misquoting something from the 1800's that does not even refer to the earths curvature.




    I don't recall Alpha answering to this. A lot is made of the horizon, especially out at sea. But the fact of the matter is that large ships disappear from view anywhere between 10-15 miles from shore, given that you're standing at sea level. Considering we can see up to 20 or so miles on a clear day, what would explain ships disappearing from view? I've read all about bending light and optical illusions, but in reality there is no real explanation for why would a ship disappear from view after sailing a certain distance from shore. If you're gonna scoff at bending water on a globe, then at least offer a plausible and credible explanation for ships disappearing over the horizon. On a flat earth, we'd see the ship until visibility prevented us from seeing further.
    I commented on Beanz' link. The first problem is the person staring down. Go have a look for yourself, when you stare out straight at the horizon, it rises to your eye level. It will always be slightly below because the ground it closer to us than the sky above. I also mentioned placing a camera on a flat street and having someone walk away from it. You will see they disappear from the feet up. It's called perspective.

    Shall we just leave out the water part of it for now, as we both know how the natural physics of water work in this reality. Or do you have a practical example demonstrating how water can conform to the exterior of a shape?

    Also take a look at 1 of the last vids I posted about seeing to far. I have actually done a few observations myself over an 11 mile stretch. I also posted an infrared vid awhile back that saw mountains over 123 miles. All this stuff should be hidden by miles of claimed curvature. I think there is also a Guinness book of records for longest photo or something, that is like 275 miles.



    Take a look if you can at that vid I posted about how we see, and how things disappear from the bottom up.

    Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
    Also offer reasonable alternatives to explain gravity, or whatever name the flat earthers want to give that force that keeps us grounded. At least the sphere has a center point, from which the entire surface is perpendicular. Thus, everything falls straight down. A flat earth keeps us grounded.... how? Where is this pull coming from? A bunch of parallel lines across the surface of the Earth? The sphere makes more sense as far as gravity pull is concerned.

    Offer reasonable alternatives to explain night and day and how the division moves across the Earth. Flat Earthers explain it with a sun that circles above the Earth, lighting areas as it passes overhead. What forces keep the sun rotating in such a manner? Why are some areas dark if the sun is always above the surface of the Earth? Again, the sphere model explains night and day much better.

    The Flat Earthers main beef is the water staying on a curved planet. A spinning ball. Saying that gravity holds the water against the surface just doesn't cut it. They use micro experiments to try and explain a macro phenomenon. I think that's flawed, but no one will ever convince Flat Earthers otherwise.

    Here's the deal.

    Round Earthers probably shouldn't ridicule Flat Earthers for their opinions. But the opposite holds true as well. Alpha saying he KNOWS the Earth is flat, while the rest of us can only THINK the Earth is round, is tantamount to ridicule and dismissal. This sets off the whole back-and-forth, enough of which we've had on plenty of other subjects. News flash: Not everyone that believes the Earth is round is a sheep, believing whatever they tell us. There is plenty of logical arguments for a round Earth.... just depends on the color of the glass through which you look at it.

    Said this before and I'll say it again. Someone comes at you with a 9/11 conspiracy theory, and you believe they're being serious right away. So the argument begins right away. With Flat Earthers, it's so odd to the rest of us, that the initial reaction is one of... "You're joking, right?" When it becomes apparent they're not, that's when the insults start flying and everything goes downhill from there (and keeps on rolling until it disappears over the curvature of the Earth). We can hardly be blamed for the initial reactions.
    Since you brought up gravity can you tell me what sort of gravity you are talking about? Newtonian or Einsteinian?

    Mass attracting mass, or the movement of space and time?

    It sounds like you are referring to Newtonian, so I'll ask where do we observe this in nature. Can you give me an example of an experiment that proves this gravity? And please don't bring up the Cavendish experiment. On a flat plane there is only 1 direction, and that is down. Things fall down based on density.

    There are many FE models out there that explain how the sun and moon work. Take a look, do some research. And decide for yourself. I understand their models but like I have said many times, I don't advocate any, as looking at the sky gives us nothing quantifiable of the ground beneath our feet. It also creates a strawman argument.

    I'm a globe denier, and by questioning the claims of the globe I have found it to be demonstrably level.

    Water covers over 70% of the earths surface. We know how the natural physics of water work, if you claim it can do something else, then that needs to be proved, in this reality. Otherwise it's just a claim. Research gravity with an open mind. Find out how opposed it has been. It's a weak force, but strong enough to hold trillions of gallons of water onto a sphere? Einsteins relativity basically superseded Newtons, but look into it and see what other great minds refused to recognize it. And again, instead of proving that the ether didn't exist, he just disregarded it.

    It's the same with the atmosphere. If the globe claim is that our pressurized atmosphere can remain, with no barrier, right beside a claimed vacuum, then again that claim needs to be proven, in this reality. Because we know that's not how gases and particles work on earth. Which is what we are talking about.

    Look I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm only stating what I know to be true, by using the tangible substances in this reality. When you really start researching what we have been taught, you find that all of it is based on assumptions. Not actual science.

    Also if you get the chance watch the movie The Principle, it shows that even the scientist aren't sure about if the sun is moving around us. But that's what it seems to suggest. But I already believe this to be true.

    Look at this. Not really exact science is it.



    But like I say, do your own research, even if you don't research FE, at least research the heliocentric model, so you can full understand the claims that are being made.

    This like dark matter and dark energy are things they have needed to add to the story, as they found it wouldn't work without it. Again, stuff with no actual scientific experiments, just math, equations and assumptions. Just like they had to add the tilt of the earth, and gravity before that. You really think no one before Newton saw something fall down? Or no one before Columbus, decided to sail west for roughly 1700 years.

    We can agree to disagree, if you research the heliocentric model and still wish to believe in the globe, that's fine with me. Unfortunately for myself, I know that it's not true based on denying the claims of the globe. I would love nothing more than to come back behind the curtain and watch the show with the majority (the world is a theater after all) but once you see, you can't unsee.

    Again I don't try to convince others, I just state what I know to be true. Proven with actual science. There is no need for anyone to try and convince me, but at least try to convince yourself of the model you have been taught. There are no sides in this. In my opinion objective reality is not up for debate. All I ask is don't follow blindly, prove every claim of the globe to yourselves.

    But stay away from those that will tell you what is what, learn it for yourself. There are a lot of deceivers out there. The information is out there, take it upon yourself to find out where we are and what we are on.

    Your last post sounded like a sort of olive branch, so I'll take the higher road and refrain from the continued insults.
    They live, We sleep

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    6,628
    Mentioned
    158 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    239
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beanz View Post
    Oh and in case you did not notice. I started this thread because he refused to and very early in it expressed dismay that he had apparently been threatened.
    And Alphs's avatar ?
    I am sure it is just a coincidence ...Not
    but it is the flag of the National Fascist party under Mussolini
    So he knows exactly what he is doing and all the talk of being rare as Unicorns is bullshit.
    Interesting, never realised that, thought it was something from GoT or that playstation game you all love.

    There's a reason Neil deGrasse Tyson refuses to debate flat-earthers and likewise Dawkins won't entertain creationists (and a reason flat-earthers believe they're paid up government liars). I'm probably a little naive but if holocaust deniers/fascists really expected to be taken seriously surely they wouldn't express the belief in every conspiracy known to man? Surely that separates them from David Irving types?

    Tito and Alpha never had a bad word on the boxing forum. Now look at them? I knew where it was heading that's all. Now I have no problem with the "insults" as long as they're enjoying themselves and nobody starts crying about bans and reporting posts
    There are a heap of conspiracies I don't believe. Aliens for example.

    They need to change the name as well. I have no secret plan, with others to do something unlawful or harmful.
    They live, We sleep

  5. #155
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    20,377
    Mentioned
    441 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1636
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    I commented on Beanz' link. The first problem is the person staring down. Go have a look for yourself, when you stare out straight at the horizon, it rises to your eye level. It will always be slightly below because the ground it closer to us than the sky above. I also mentioned placing a camera on a flat street and having someone walk away from it. You will see they disappear from the feet up. It's called perspective.
    When you stare at the horizon, you may very well be looking down because as you said, the person’s eye level height above the ground needs to be factored in. However, when observing objects such as ships disappearing over the horizon, as your angle of sight has remained constant, it doesn’t change the fact that you’re watching a disappearing (from view) ship. Your angle of sight is the same for when you see the ship and when you don’t, thus it cancels out of the equation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Shall we just leave out the water part of it for now, as we both know how the natural physics of water work in this reality. Or do you have a practical example demonstrating how water can conform to the exterior of a shape?
    It’s tough to leave water “out of it”, because there are relatively few places where you can true “flat” terrain on which to carry out observations like you can with water. The fact of the matter is that if the Earth was truly flat, ships wouldn’t “disappear” after a 10-mile distance. If you go into the discussion with the preconceived notion that an ocean cannot conform to a spherical surface, I believe you’re violating your own desired scientific posture.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Also take a look at 1 of the last vids I posted about seeing to far. I have actually done a few observations myself over an 11 mile stretch. I also posted an infrared vid awhile back that saw mountains over 123 miles. All this stuff should be hidden by miles of claimed curvature. I think there is also a Guinness book of records for longest photo or something, that is like 275 miles.
    Your personal observations at an 11-mile distance prove exactly what? At that distance the curvature is just over 80 feet. If you can still see something, such as a mountain, from an 11-mile distance, I should hope you’re looking at a mountain over 80 feet tall. The infrared video that allegedly sees mountains over 123 miles away I presume is something you posted and not your own. The word “allegedly” was put there for a purpose. Using your own logic, unless you have proof of 123-mile or 275-mile photographs, using irrefutable experiments carried out by you, I’m afraid I’d have to put those into question also.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Take a look if you can at that vid I posted about how we see, and how things disappear from the bottom up.
    Stating that things disappear from the bottom up is hardly a condemnation on Earth’s curvature. That’s how it would seem logical for things to disappear into the horizon… from the bottom up. Maybe I misunderstood your claims here.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Since you brought up gravity can you tell me what sort of gravity you are talking about? Newtonian or Einsteinian?

    Mass attracting mass, or the movement of space and time?

    It sounds like you are referring to Newtonian, so I'll ask where do we observe this in nature. Can you give me an example of an experiment that proves this gravity? And please don't bring up the Cavendish experiment. On a flat plane there is only 1 direction, and that is down. Things fall down based on density.
    When I refer to gravity I refer to Newtonian gravity. The type we were all taught in school which, I know, you scoff at as being led around like sheep. Let’s just say it’s the only type of gravity most of us understand. Example of an experiment that proves Newtonian gravity? No… I don’t know of any. Other than the typical experiments showing objects falling in a vacuum, where the mass is not a factor in the acceleration of the fall. Other than that I’m afraid it’s just plain ol’ observation. I’ll just take Newton’s word for it, I guess. I don’t do bending of space and time very well, so that’s another reason to stick to Newton. By the way, things moving in any direction are indicative of a force acting on them. Density is not a force.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    There are many FE models out there that explain how the sun and moon work. Take a look, do some research. And decide for yourself. I understand their models but like I have said many times, I don't advocate any, as looking at the sky gives us nothing quantifiable of the ground beneath our feet. It also creates a strawman argument.
    The sun and moon is where we totally part ways. You claim “there are many FE models out there that explain how the sun and moon work”, but you don’t go into any of them. You and I both know that claims of a gyrating sun above a flat Earth without any force to keep it on a circular path is automatically “inferior-sounding” to the conventionally accepted concept of a globe orbiting a sun of much greater mass. Add the moon to these FE models, and you’ve got something the Flat Earthers have struggled to explain. You can't just say, "oh... the Earth orbiting the Sun can't be because the Earth isn't round... but a Sun circling overhead with no proven force keeping it on its circular orbit makes much more sense."


    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    It's the same with the atmosphere. If the globe claim is that our pressurized atmosphere can remain, with no barrier, right beside a claimed vacuum, then again that claim needs to be proven, in this reality. Because we know that's not how gases and particles work on earth. Which is what we are talking about.
    Your take on atmospheric pressure is confounding to say the least. First of all, you’ve stated that “space is FAKE”. So what are we talking about here? To begin with, we’re discussing something you’ve already dismissed as fake, so the argument begins with that asterisk. Ignoring that, air pressure is a gradient. We don’t have a pressurized atmosphere and then all of a sudden….. OOPS….. we’re in the vacuum of space….. where’s the vessel wall?? It’s a gradient. As such, you have gradually decreasing air pressure until there’s no pressure at all. What holds the atmosphere to the Earth? Yes….. gravity. Atmosphere contains air…. air molecules create pressure.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Your last post sounded like a sort of olive branch, so I'll take the higher road and refrain from the continued insults.
    What you saw in my last post was an attempt to swerve the conversation from the pointless, endless, destructive tack is was taking. Someone had to stop the proceedings, right?
    Last edited by TitoFan; 02-08-2019 at 10:10 AM. Reason: the red font was giving me a headache

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    46,540
    Mentioned
    878 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    3144
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beanz View Post
    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.

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRWNc_AZewu7AAERwCfLfupUZIJSbzqC MgjXFbc0u9YrZkuInoB

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    6,628
    Mentioned
    158 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    239
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    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.
    They live, We sleep

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The Edge Of Nowhere
    Posts
    21,090
    Mentioned
    786 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1021
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gandalf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beanz View Post
    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
    Hidden Content

    "You're a big man, but you're in bad shape. With me it's a full time job. Now behave yourself..."

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    13,555
    Mentioned
    602 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    577
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    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
    Last edited by walrus; 02-08-2019 at 06:54 PM.

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The Edge Of Nowhere
    Posts
    21,090
    Mentioned
    786 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1021
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by walrus View Post
    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
    Hidden Content

    "You're a big man, but you're in bad shape. With me it's a full time job. Now behave yourself..."

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    13,555
    Mentioned
    602 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    577
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beanz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by walrus View Post
    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

  12. #162
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    20,377
    Mentioned
    441 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1636
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    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.

  13. #163
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    20,377
    Mentioned
    441 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1636
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    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.

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    13,555
    Mentioned
    602 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    577
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    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

  15. #165
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    20,377
    Mentioned
    441 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1636
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. flat footed
    By fightingforever in forum Ask the Trainer
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-06-2008, 01:41 PM
  2. Does your house/flat have a name...?
    By smashup in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 09-11-2008, 06:30 PM
  3. My Flat
    By beds in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 06-23-2006, 02:19 AM
  4. My flat was burgled last night....
    By Mark TKO in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-14-2006, 01:39 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  





Boxing | Boxing Photos | Boxing News | Boxing Videos | Boxing Forum | Boxing Books | Boxing Posters | Learn to Box | Advanced Fighting Methods | Boxing Rankings | Boxing Schedule | Auctions | Fun and Games | Boxing Equipment

Copyright © 2000 - 2019 Saddo Boxing - Boxing