Boxing Forums


.



User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  7
Likes Likes:  179
Dislikes Dislikes:  11
Page 39 of 46 FirstFirst ... 293738394041 ... LastLast
Results 571 to 585 of 690

Thread: Is the earth flat?

Share/Bookmark
  1. #571
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Fenay, Longvic
    Posts
    1,191
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    22
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    he trusts his eyes when "conducting" his "water experiemnts" but says we cant trust our eyes.

  2. #572
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    6,816
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    247
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beanz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beanz View Post
    Alpha you are confusing philosophical concepts with scientific criteria. You are basically arguing against yourself in insisting on two principles that cancel each other out.

    You are not displaying a healthy skepticism but rather a retreat into denialism. You are in one breath saying you cannot trust your eyes and at the same time demanding that the illusion of level water on the horizon be accepted as evidence despite it requiring that you deny overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

    You are also mocking Andre's bubbles for not having metals and a core when you have for the entire thread denied that is necessary and impossible to model when dealing with your own curved water around a sphere mantra.
    The physics of water are not an illusion. They are testable and demonstrable. Show me where I have ever said "level water on the horizon be accepted as evidence".

    Are you saying that when you observe railway tracks converging, that they are in reality?

    I'm not mocking Andre's bubbles, but they in no way represent in the slightest the globe model.

    You continue to misrepresent me.

    Bullshit. You continue to refuse to engage. I am using YOUR criteria and still your intellectual dishonesty is so extreme it is off the scale. Go back and address the points raised and stop evading everything. Your 'no such thing as experts' view of the world is dangerously catching on. You are pissing on the chips of other people because you want your own vinegar of opinion and belief to replace facts and real world experience. Nobody is misrepresenting you at all. We have all addressed your assertions and dreamy hallucinations and you don't have the decency to engage with anyone when it is demonstrated they are built on nonsense.

    You are a believer in something that makes you feel special, don't kid yourself that it has anything to do with science or reality.
    I am happy to engage, as I was with you, until you began insulting me again, calling me stupid and saying I don't understand. None of that proves a globe. I have also tried to with Andre, Walrus, Memphis etc. I like to set first principles, because if we don’t agree on the basics, then there is no point in discussing things further. I am happy to leave one to their beliefs.

    You appealing to authority again. You and your logical fallacies.

    Calling me dreamy isn’t a proof of the globe.

    I am the only one here presenting actual science. I am dealing in physics, but you prefer to deny the reality of the physics of tangible substances in this reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Memphis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Memphis View Post
    Alpha what do you make of this stuff?

    https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-pro...artrain.t8939/

    The water argument is a consistent one throughout the thread and one that if observed by any one of us day to day you'd have to conclude that it conforms to it's shape and is level. You really need to supersize the observation.

    A flat Earth would be good. Especially if its proof had a Truman Show type ending. That would be brilliant.
    Didn't have a look but Mick West is a shill and has been debunked over and over, as has Soundly. You will find anyone trying to debunk 'flat earth' will only ever use visual phenomena or formal science. They will never use natural science, or practical, physical demonstrations using the tangible substances of the earth. What I mean by that is, when we look down a set of railway tracks disapearing in the distance, they appear to converge, although we know in reality they are parallel. That is a visual phenomena. Physical phenomena is testing the substances, water, gases etc.

    Cool Memphis, it sounds like you do agree with one of my first principles, but I'll pop it here, you can confirm if you want.

    Would you agree that it's an objective physical truth that a body of water will always take the shape of its container and the surface will always be level?

    So at what scale do you believe the physics of water change? Because we have been told the circumference of the earth, and using geometry we can work out how much it is curving per mile. I can demonstrate the physics of water, we have used water in construction for centuries.

    The Truman Show had lots of truths in it, but also pushed the propaganda of a dome.
    I guess the answer to your question is two fold and both with the caveat that is 'as far as I can see'. I've never conducted any scientific experiments but at a very basic say what you see level, water does conform to it's container and is 'level'. Would that be the same at my local fifty meter pool or reservoir? Don't know. I could observe in both of those relatively small containers that the water is conforming to it's boundaries. level? I couldn't say, but it would look that way. I apply the same logic to putting up a shelf. Does it look level? Then that's good enough for me.

    I would imagine every flat/globe earther has been debunked and debunked again. If they weren't, we wouldn't have this thread. What is it about what I posted that you don't like? Not the people presenting it, but the methods or practices they use?

    I don't really understand the train track idea. Flat, globe, the result would be the same.
    “As far as I can see”.

    I would also add, as far as you can test and demonstrate. If at any point the altitude from one-point drops below the other, water will start to flow, to its lowest energy state. We have used water to level in construction for centuries because we understand its properties and how accurate it is. When you used a spirit level tool on your ‘shelf’, it would confirm if in fact it was level.

    Yea I don’t like Mick West, he is paid opposition. Many, many times his dishonesty has been shown. And Soundly is probably a paid shill as well. That photo for example of the bridge and water curving, is just a simple camera trick. Most of these flat earth debunking channels, SciManDan, Conspiracy Kats, Fight the Flat Earth and many others, have been proven to be propped up. False inflated subs and views, and they are all monetised and selling merch. I believe the truth should be free. Don’t you think it’s strange that if you type in a google search for ‘globe proofs’ or something similar, all you get is flat earth debunking videos?

    The track idea is just to show the difference between visual and physical phenomena. Those who try to debunk a flat/ level earth will always use visible phenomena and formal science. Never physical tangible phenomena and natural science. The tracks appearing to our eye to converge, is not the physical reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by walrus View Post
    I wish alpha could present a couple things. He has his argument I understand. However when asked to present any theory of what the earth may look like if not round, at least an iota instead of saying those who ask him about the edge are using scarecrow arguments seems short sighted. In addition why? For what reason would so many countries and private companies involved in space travel and satellite tech and communication cover this up. How would it not leak out? It would be one of the greatest cover ups in, well in anything ever. It’s just a question.
    I have said many times that I believe there may be more land. As for what shape the earth may be, I have no idea, I don’t like to make assumptions, that is what has gotten us where we are now. There are so many possibilities to the ‘why’, more land and resources, money, power, keeping us confined and controlled etc.

    The globe is a perfect prison. Humans are naturally curious. If you put a fence around us, we want to explore and find out what’s on the other side. With the globe, they have made it, so that we believe there is nothing else, that this is all there is.

    As for would it leak out, it already has, or we wouldn't be discussing this.
    They live, We sleep

  3. #573
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    13,704
    Mentioned
    615 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    584
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beanz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beanz View Post
    Alpha you are confusing philosophical concepts with scientific criteria. You are basically arguing against yourself in insisting on two principles that cancel each other out.

    You are not displaying a healthy skepticism but rather a retreat into denialism. You are in one breath saying you cannot trust your eyes and at the same time demanding that the illusion of level water on the horizon be accepted as evidence despite it requiring that you deny overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

    You are also mocking Andre's bubbles for not having metals and a core when you have for the entire thread denied that is necessary and impossible to model when dealing with your own curved water around a sphere mantra.
    The physics of water are not an illusion. They are testable and demonstrable. Show me where I have ever said "level water on the horizon be accepted as evidence".

    Are you saying that when you observe railway tracks converging, that they are in reality?

    I'm not mocking Andre's bubbles, but they in no way represent in the slightest the globe model.

    You continue to misrepresent me.

    Bullshit. You continue to refuse to engage. I am using YOUR criteria and still your intellectual dishonesty is so extreme it is off the scale. Go back and address the points raised and stop evading everything. Your 'no such thing as experts' view of the world is dangerously catching on. You are pissing on the chips of other people because you want your own vinegar of opinion and belief to replace facts and real world experience. Nobody is misrepresenting you at all. We have all addressed your assertions and dreamy hallucinations and you don't have the decency to engage with anyone when it is demonstrated they are built on nonsense.

    You are a believer in something that makes you feel special, don't kid yourself that it has anything to do with science or reality.
    I am happy to engage, as I was with you, until you began insulting me again, calling me stupid and saying I don't understand. None of that proves a globe. I have also tried to with Andre, Walrus, Memphis etc. I like to set first principles, because if we don’t agree on the basics, then there is no point in discussing things further. I am happy to leave one to their beliefs.

    You appealing to authority again. You and your logical fallacies.

    Calling me dreamy isn’t a proof of the globe.

    I am the only one here presenting actual science. I am dealing in physics, but you prefer to deny the reality of the physics of tangible substances in this reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Memphis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Memphis View Post
    Alpha what do you make of this stuff?

    https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-pro...artrain.t8939/

    The water argument is a consistent one throughout the thread and one that if observed by any one of us day to day you'd have to conclude that it conforms to it's shape and is level. You really need to supersize the observation.

    A flat Earth would be good. Especially if its proof had a Truman Show type ending. That would be brilliant.
    Didn't have a look but Mick West is a shill and has been debunked over and over, as has Soundly. You will find anyone trying to debunk 'flat earth' will only ever use visual phenomena or formal science. They will never use natural science, or practical, physical demonstrations using the tangible substances of the earth. What I mean by that is, when we look down a set of railway tracks disapearing in the distance, they appear to converge, although we know in reality they are parallel. That is a visual phenomena. Physical phenomena is testing the substances, water, gases etc.

    Cool Memphis, it sounds like you do agree with one of my first principles, but I'll pop it here, you can confirm if you want.

    Would you agree that it's an objective physical truth that a body of water will always take the shape of its container and the surface will always be level?

    So at what scale do you believe the physics of water change? Because we have been told the circumference of the earth, and using geometry we can work out how much it is curving per mile. I can demonstrate the physics of water, we have used water in construction for centuries.

    The Truman Show had lots of truths in it, but also pushed the propaganda of a dome.
    I guess the answer to your question is two fold and both with the caveat that is 'as far as I can see'. I've never conducted any scientific experiments but at a very basic say what you see level, water does conform to it's container and is 'level'. Would that be the same at my local fifty meter pool or reservoir? Don't know. I could observe in both of those relatively small containers that the water is conforming to it's boundaries. level? I couldn't say, but it would look that way. I apply the same logic to putting up a shelf. Does it look level? Then that's good enough for me.

    I would imagine every flat/globe earther has been debunked and debunked again. If they weren't, we wouldn't have this thread. What is it about what I posted that you don't like? Not the people presenting it, but the methods or practices they use?

    I don't really understand the train track idea. Flat, globe, the result would be the same.
    “As far as I can see”.

    I would also add, as far as you can test and demonstrate. If at any point the altitude from one-point drops below the other, water will start to flow, to its lowest energy state. We have used water to level in construction for centuries because we understand its properties and how accurate it is. When you used a spirit level tool on your ‘shelf’, it would confirm if in fact it was level.

    Yea I don’t like Mick West, he is paid opposition. Many, many times his dishonesty has been shown. And Soundly is probably a paid shill as well. That photo for example of the bridge and water curving, is just a simple camera trick. Most of these flat earth debunking channels, SciManDan, Conspiracy Kats, Fight the Flat Earth and many others, have been proven to be propped up. False inflated subs and views, and they are all monetised and selling merch. I believe the truth should be free. Don’t you think it’s strange that if you type in a google search for ‘globe proofs’ or something similar, all you get is flat earth debunking videos?

    The track idea is just to show the difference between visual and physical phenomena. Those who try to debunk a flat/ level earth will always use visible phenomena and formal science. Never physical tangible phenomena and natural science. The tracks appearing to our eye to converge, is not the physical reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by walrus View Post
    I wish alpha could present a couple things. He has his argument I understand. However when asked to present any theory of what the earth may look like if not round, at least an iota instead of saying those who ask him about the edge are using scarecrow arguments seems short sighted. In addition why? For what reason would so many countries and private companies involved in space travel and satellite tech and communication cover this up. How would it not leak out? It would be one of the greatest cover ups in, well in anything ever. It’s just a question.
    I have said many times that I believe there may be more land. As for what shape the earth may be, I have no idea, I don’t like to make assumptions, that is what has gotten us where we are now. There are so many possibilities to the ‘why’, more land and resources, money, power, keeping us confined and controlled etc.

    The globe is a perfect prison. Humans are naturally curious. If you put a fence around us, we want to explore and find out what’s on the other side. With the globe, they have made it, so that we believe there is nothing else, that this is all there is.

    As for would it leak out, it already has, or we wouldn't be discussing this.
    No a leak would explain what it is and why we are imprisoned from the truth. It would be like Kennedy at least plausible theory’s and what and why. It wouldn’t be I don’t know and imprisoned but no idea why

  4. #574
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    6,816
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    247
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fatboxingfan View Post
    he trusts his eyes when "conducting" his "water experiemnts" but says we cant trust our eyes.
    I trust the physics of the tangible substance. Got a practical demonstration yet?

    Quote Originally Posted by walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beanz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beanz View Post
    Alpha you are confusing philosophical concepts with scientific criteria. You are basically arguing against yourself in insisting on two principles that cancel each other out.

    You are not displaying a healthy skepticism but rather a retreat into denialism. You are in one breath saying you cannot trust your eyes and at the same time demanding that the illusion of level water on the horizon be accepted as evidence despite it requiring that you deny overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

    You are also mocking Andre's bubbles for not having metals and a core when you have for the entire thread denied that is necessary and impossible to model when dealing with your own curved water around a sphere mantra.
    The physics of water are not an illusion. They are testable and demonstrable. Show me where I have ever said "level water on the horizon be accepted as evidence".

    Are you saying that when you observe railway tracks converging, that they are in reality?

    I'm not mocking Andre's bubbles, but they in no way represent in the slightest the globe model.

    You continue to misrepresent me.

    Bullshit. You continue to refuse to engage. I am using YOUR criteria and still your intellectual dishonesty is so extreme it is off the scale. Go back and address the points raised and stop evading everything. Your 'no such thing as experts' view of the world is dangerously catching on. You are pissing on the chips of other people because you want your own vinegar of opinion and belief to replace facts and real world experience. Nobody is misrepresenting you at all. We have all addressed your assertions and dreamy hallucinations and you don't have the decency to engage with anyone when it is demonstrated they are built on nonsense.

    You are a believer in something that makes you feel special, don't kid yourself that it has anything to do with science or reality.
    I am happy to engage, as I was with you, until you began insulting me again, calling me stupid and saying I don't understand. None of that proves a globe. I have also tried to with Andre, Walrus, Memphis etc. I like to set first principles, because if we don’t agree on the basics, then there is no point in discussing things further. I am happy to leave one to their beliefs.

    You appealing to authority again. You and your logical fallacies.

    Calling me dreamy isn’t a proof of the globe.

    I am the only one here presenting actual science. I am dealing in physics, but you prefer to deny the reality of the physics of tangible substances in this reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Memphis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Memphis View Post
    Alpha what do you make of this stuff?

    https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-pro...artrain.t8939/

    The water argument is a consistent one throughout the thread and one that if observed by any one of us day to day you'd have to conclude that it conforms to it's shape and is level. You really need to supersize the observation.

    A flat Earth would be good. Especially if its proof had a Truman Show type ending. That would be brilliant.
    Didn't have a look but Mick West is a shill and has been debunked over and over, as has Soundly. You will find anyone trying to debunk 'flat earth' will only ever use visual phenomena or formal science. They will never use natural science, or practical, physical demonstrations using the tangible substances of the earth. What I mean by that is, when we look down a set of railway tracks disapearing in the distance, they appear to converge, although we know in reality they are parallel. That is a visual phenomena. Physical phenomena is testing the substances, water, gases etc.

    Cool Memphis, it sounds like you do agree with one of my first principles, but I'll pop it here, you can confirm if you want.

    Would you agree that it's an objective physical truth that a body of water will always take the shape of its container and the surface will always be level?

    So at what scale do you believe the physics of water change? Because we have been told the circumference of the earth, and using geometry we can work out how much it is curving per mile. I can demonstrate the physics of water, we have used water in construction for centuries.

    The Truman Show had lots of truths in it, but also pushed the propaganda of a dome.
    I guess the answer to your question is two fold and both with the caveat that is 'as far as I can see'. I've never conducted any scientific experiments but at a very basic say what you see level, water does conform to it's container and is 'level'. Would that be the same at my local fifty meter pool or reservoir? Don't know. I could observe in both of those relatively small containers that the water is conforming to it's boundaries. level? I couldn't say, but it would look that way. I apply the same logic to putting up a shelf. Does it look level? Then that's good enough for me.

    I would imagine every flat/globe earther has been debunked and debunked again. If they weren't, we wouldn't have this thread. What is it about what I posted that you don't like? Not the people presenting it, but the methods or practices they use?

    I don't really understand the train track idea. Flat, globe, the result would be the same.
    “As far as I can see”.

    I would also add, as far as you can test and demonstrate. If at any point the altitude from one-point drops below the other, water will start to flow, to its lowest energy state. We have used water to level in construction for centuries because we understand its properties and how accurate it is. When you used a spirit level tool on your ‘shelf’, it would confirm if in fact it was level.

    Yea I don’t like Mick West, he is paid opposition. Many, many times his dishonesty has been shown. And Soundly is probably a paid shill as well. That photo for example of the bridge and water curving, is just a simple camera trick. Most of these flat earth debunking channels, SciManDan, Conspiracy Kats, Fight the Flat Earth and many others, have been proven to be propped up. False inflated subs and views, and they are all monetised and selling merch. I believe the truth should be free. Don’t you think it’s strange that if you type in a google search for ‘globe proofs’ or something similar, all you get is flat earth debunking videos?

    The track idea is just to show the difference between visual and physical phenomena. Those who try to debunk a flat/ level earth will always use visible phenomena and formal science. Never physical tangible phenomena and natural science. The tracks appearing to our eye to converge, is not the physical reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by walrus View Post
    I wish alpha could present a couple things. He has his argument I understand. However when asked to present any theory of what the earth may look like if not round, at least an iota instead of saying those who ask him about the edge are using scarecrow arguments seems short sighted. In addition why? For what reason would so many countries and private companies involved in space travel and satellite tech and communication cover this up. How would it not leak out? It would be one of the greatest cover ups in, well in anything ever. It’s just a question.
    I have said many times that I believe there may be more land. As for what shape the earth may be, I have no idea, I don’t like to make assumptions, that is what has gotten us where we are now. There are so many possibilities to the ‘why’, more land and resources, money, power, keeping us confined and controlled etc.

    The globe is a perfect prison. Humans are naturally curious. If you put a fence around us, we want to explore and find out what’s on the other side. With the globe, they have made it, so that we believe there is nothing else, that this is all there is.

    As for would it leak out, it already has, or we wouldn't be discussing this.
    No a leak would explain what it is and why we are imprisoned from the truth. It would be like Kennedy at least plausible theory’s and what and why. It wouldn’t be I don’t know and imprisoned but no idea why
    Without full exploration we don't know what it is. I don't know because I have never fully explored this place, as we are restricted. Neither have you. I have my ideas on this stuff, but like you say, they are just theories. This is why there is no point in discussing it, it doesn't present any proof for a globe and you try to use it to attack the actual argument. Natural science and the physics of tangible substances are plausible.
    They live, We sleep

  5. #575
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Fenay, Longvic
    Posts
    1,191
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    22
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    @Alpha YOU TRUST THE PHYSICS OF THE TANGIBLE SUBSTANCE by using your eyes.

    which you said deceive you.


  6. #576
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    6,816
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    247
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fatboxingfan View Post
    @Alpha YOU TRUST THE PHYSICS OF THE TANGIBLE SUBSTANCE by using your eyes.

    which you said deceive you.

    Yes 'physics' through observation and experiment, actual science. Why are you avoiding first principles? I'm done with you, you are easy, spanked.
    They live, We sleep

  7. #577
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Fenay, Longvic
    Posts
    1,191
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    22
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatboxingfan View Post
    @Alpha YOU TRUST THE PHYSICS OF THE TANGIBLE SUBSTANCE by using your eyes.

    which you said deceive you.

    Yes 'physics' through observation and experiment, actual science. Why are you avoiding first principles? I'm done with you, you are easy, spanked.
    You said we cannot trust out observations which are done with our eyes.

    ****OWNED****

  8. #578
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    6,816
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    247
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fatboxingfan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatboxingfan View Post
    @Alpha YOU TRUST THE PHYSICS OF THE TANGIBLE SUBSTANCE by using your eyes.

    which you said deceive you.

    Yes 'physics' through observation and experiment, actual science. Why are you avoiding first principles? I'm done with you, you are easy, spanked.
    You said we cannot trust out observations which are done with our eyes.

    ****OWNED****
    I said our senses can be fooled. Or do you disagree with that statement? We are observing the physics of a tangible substance through experiment. You don't even understand basic science.

    Cool story bro.
    They live, We sleep

  9. #579
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    13,704
    Mentioned
    615 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    584
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatboxingfan View Post
    he trusts his eyes when "conducting" his "water experiemnts" but says we cant trust our eyes.
    I trust the physics of the tangible substance. Got a practical demonstration yet?

    Quote Originally Posted by walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beanz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beanz View Post
    Alpha you are confusing philosophical concepts with scientific criteria. You are basically arguing against yourself in insisting on two principles that cancel each other out.

    You are not displaying a healthy skepticism but rather a retreat into denialism. You are in one breath saying you cannot trust your eyes and at the same time demanding that the illusion of level water on the horizon be accepted as evidence despite it requiring that you deny overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

    You are also mocking Andre's bubbles for not having metals and a core when you have for the entire thread denied that is necessary and impossible to model when dealing with your own curved water around a sphere mantra.
    The physics of water are not an illusion. They are testable and demonstrable. Show me where I have ever said "level water on the horizon be accepted as evidence".

    Are you saying that when you observe railway tracks converging, that they are in reality?

    I'm not mocking Andre's bubbles, but they in no way represent in the slightest the globe model.

    You continue to misrepresent me.

    Bullshit. You continue to refuse to engage. I am using YOUR criteria and still your intellectual dishonesty is so extreme it is off the scale. Go back and address the points raised and stop evading everything. Your 'no such thing as experts' view of the world is dangerously catching on. You are pissing on the chips of other people because you want your own vinegar of opinion and belief to replace facts and real world experience. Nobody is misrepresenting you at all. We have all addressed your assertions and dreamy hallucinations and you don't have the decency to engage with anyone when it is demonstrated they are built on nonsense.

    You are a believer in something that makes you feel special, don't kid yourself that it has anything to do with science or reality.
    I am happy to engage, as I was with you, until you began insulting me again, calling me stupid and saying I don't understand. None of that proves a globe. I have also tried to with Andre, Walrus, Memphis etc. I like to set first principles, because if we don’t agree on the basics, then there is no point in discussing things further. I am happy to leave one to their beliefs.

    You appealing to authority again. You and your logical fallacies.

    Calling me dreamy isn’t a proof of the globe.

    I am the only one here presenting actual science. I am dealing in physics, but you prefer to deny the reality of the physics of tangible substances in this reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Memphis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Memphis View Post
    Alpha what do you make of this stuff?

    https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-pro...artrain.t8939/

    The water argument is a consistent one throughout the thread and one that if observed by any one of us day to day you'd have to conclude that it conforms to it's shape and is level. You really need to supersize the observation.

    A flat Earth would be good. Especially if its proof had a Truman Show type ending. That would be brilliant.
    Didn't have a look but Mick West is a shill and has been debunked over and over, as has Soundly. You will find anyone trying to debunk 'flat earth' will only ever use visual phenomena or formal science. They will never use natural science, or practical, physical demonstrations using the tangible substances of the earth. What I mean by that is, when we look down a set of railway tracks disapearing in the distance, they appear to converge, although we know in reality they are parallel. That is a visual phenomena. Physical phenomena is testing the substances, water, gases etc.

    Cool Memphis, it sounds like you do agree with one of my first principles, but I'll pop it here, you can confirm if you want.

    Would you agree that it's an objective physical truth that a body of water will always take the shape of its container and the surface will always be level?

    So at what scale do you believe the physics of water change? Because we have been told the circumference of the earth, and using geometry we can work out how much it is curving per mile. I can demonstrate the physics of water, we have used water in construction for centuries.

    The Truman Show had lots of truths in it, but also pushed the propaganda of a dome.
    I guess the answer to your question is two fold and both with the caveat that is 'as far as I can see'. I've never conducted any scientific experiments but at a very basic say what you see level, water does conform to it's container and is 'level'. Would that be the same at my local fifty meter pool or reservoir? Don't know. I could observe in both of those relatively small containers that the water is conforming to it's boundaries. level? I couldn't say, but it would look that way. I apply the same logic to putting up a shelf. Does it look level? Then that's good enough for me.

    I would imagine every flat/globe earther has been debunked and debunked again. If they weren't, we wouldn't have this thread. What is it about what I posted that you don't like? Not the people presenting it, but the methods or practices they use?

    I don't really understand the train track idea. Flat, globe, the result would be the same.
    “As far as I can see”.

    I would also add, as far as you can test and demonstrate. If at any point the altitude from one-point drops below the other, water will start to flow, to its lowest energy state. We have used water to level in construction for centuries because we understand its properties and how accurate it is. When you used a spirit level tool on your ‘shelf’, it would confirm if in fact it was level.

    Yea I don’t like Mick West, he is paid opposition. Many, many times his dishonesty has been shown. And Soundly is probably a paid shill as well. That photo for example of the bridge and water curving, is just a simple camera trick. Most of these flat earth debunking channels, SciManDan, Conspiracy Kats, Fight the Flat Earth and many others, have been proven to be propped up. False inflated subs and views, and they are all monetised and selling merch. I believe the truth should be free. Don’t you think it’s strange that if you type in a google search for ‘globe proofs’ or something similar, all you get is flat earth debunking videos?

    The track idea is just to show the difference between visual and physical phenomena. Those who try to debunk a flat/ level earth will always use visible phenomena and formal science. Never physical tangible phenomena and natural science. The tracks appearing to our eye to converge, is not the physical reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by walrus View Post
    I wish alpha could present a couple things. He has his argument I understand. However when asked to present any theory of what the earth may look like if not round, at least an iota instead of saying those who ask him about the edge are using scarecrow arguments seems short sighted. In addition why? For what reason would so many countries and private companies involved in space travel and satellite tech and communication cover this up. How would it not leak out? It would be one of the greatest cover ups in, well in anything ever. It’s just a question.
    I have said many times that I believe there may be more land. As for what shape the earth may be, I have no idea, I don’t like to make assumptions, that is what has gotten us where we are now. There are so many possibilities to the ‘why’, more land and resources, money, power, keeping us confined and controlled etc.

    The globe is a perfect prison. Humans are naturally curious. If you put a fence around us, we want to explore and find out what’s on the other side. With the globe, they have made it, so that we believe there is nothing else, that this is all there is.

    As for would it leak out, it already has, or we wouldn't be discussing this.
    No a leak would explain what it is and why we are imprisoned from the truth. It would be like Kennedy at least plausible theory’s and what and why. It wouldn’t be I don’t know and imprisoned but no idea why
    Without full exploration we don't know what it is. I don't know because I have never fully explored this place, as we are restricted. Neither have you. I have my ideas on this stuff, but like you say, they are just theories. This is why there is no point in discussing it, it doesn't present any proof for a globe and you try to use it to attack the actual argument. Natural science and the physics of tangible substances are plausible.
    you said it was leaked. So what did the leak say about what they are hiding. What did it say is the true shape of the world. And of course we want to hear your theories, even one
    Last edited by walrus; 11-04-2019 at 10:52 PM.

  10. #580
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    6,816
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    247
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatboxingfan View Post
    he trusts his eyes when "conducting" his "water experiemnts" but says we cant trust our eyes.
    I trust the physics of the tangible substance. Got a practical demonstration yet?

    Quote Originally Posted by walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beanz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beanz View Post
    Alpha you are confusing philosophical concepts with scientific criteria. You are basically arguing against yourself in insisting on two principles that cancel each other out.

    You are not displaying a healthy skepticism but rather a retreat into denialism. You are in one breath saying you cannot trust your eyes and at the same time demanding that the illusion of level water on the horizon be accepted as evidence despite it requiring that you deny overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

    You are also mocking Andre's bubbles for not having metals and a core when you have for the entire thread denied that is necessary and impossible to model when dealing with your own curved water around a sphere mantra.
    The physics of water are not an illusion. They are testable and demonstrable. Show me where I have ever said "level water on the horizon be accepted as evidence".

    Are you saying that when you observe railway tracks converging, that they are in reality?

    I'm not mocking Andre's bubbles, but they in no way represent in the slightest the globe model.

    You continue to misrepresent me.

    Bullshit. You continue to refuse to engage. I am using YOUR criteria and still your intellectual dishonesty is so extreme it is off the scale. Go back and address the points raised and stop evading everything. Your 'no such thing as experts' view of the world is dangerously catching on. You are pissing on the chips of other people because you want your own vinegar of opinion and belief to replace facts and real world experience. Nobody is misrepresenting you at all. We have all addressed your assertions and dreamy hallucinations and you don't have the decency to engage with anyone when it is demonstrated they are built on nonsense.

    You are a believer in something that makes you feel special, don't kid yourself that it has anything to do with science or reality.
    I am happy to engage, as I was with you, until you began insulting me again, calling me stupid and saying I don't understand. None of that proves a globe. I have also tried to with Andre, Walrus, Memphis etc. I like to set first principles, because if we don’t agree on the basics, then there is no point in discussing things further. I am happy to leave one to their beliefs.

    You appealing to authority again. You and your logical fallacies.

    Calling me dreamy isn’t a proof of the globe.

    I am the only one here presenting actual science. I am dealing in physics, but you prefer to deny the reality of the physics of tangible substances in this reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Memphis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Memphis View Post
    Alpha what do you make of this stuff?

    https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-pro...artrain.t8939/

    The water argument is a consistent one throughout the thread and one that if observed by any one of us day to day you'd have to conclude that it conforms to it's shape and is level. You really need to supersize the observation.

    A flat Earth would be good. Especially if its proof had a Truman Show type ending. That would be brilliant.
    Didn't have a look but Mick West is a shill and has been debunked over and over, as has Soundly. You will find anyone trying to debunk 'flat earth' will only ever use visual phenomena or formal science. They will never use natural science, or practical, physical demonstrations using the tangible substances of the earth. What I mean by that is, when we look down a set of railway tracks disapearing in the distance, they appear to converge, although we know in reality they are parallel. That is a visual phenomena. Physical phenomena is testing the substances, water, gases etc.

    Cool Memphis, it sounds like you do agree with one of my first principles, but I'll pop it here, you can confirm if you want.

    Would you agree that it's an objective physical truth that a body of water will always take the shape of its container and the surface will always be level?

    So at what scale do you believe the physics of water change? Because we have been told the circumference of the earth, and using geometry we can work out how much it is curving per mile. I can demonstrate the physics of water, we have used water in construction for centuries.

    The Truman Show had lots of truths in it, but also pushed the propaganda of a dome.
    I guess the answer to your question is two fold and both with the caveat that is 'as far as I can see'. I've never conducted any scientific experiments but at a very basic say what you see level, water does conform to it's container and is 'level'. Would that be the same at my local fifty meter pool or reservoir? Don't know. I could observe in both of those relatively small containers that the water is conforming to it's boundaries. level? I couldn't say, but it would look that way. I apply the same logic to putting up a shelf. Does it look level? Then that's good enough for me.

    I would imagine every flat/globe earther has been debunked and debunked again. If they weren't, we wouldn't have this thread. What is it about what I posted that you don't like? Not the people presenting it, but the methods or practices they use?

    I don't really understand the train track idea. Flat, globe, the result would be the same.
    “As far as I can see”.

    I would also add, as far as you can test and demonstrate. If at any point the altitude from one-point drops below the other, water will start to flow, to its lowest energy state. We have used water to level in construction for centuries because we understand its properties and how accurate it is. When you used a spirit level tool on your ‘shelf’, it would confirm if in fact it was level.

    Yea I don’t like Mick West, he is paid opposition. Many, many times his dishonesty has been shown. And Soundly is probably a paid shill as well. That photo for example of the bridge and water curving, is just a simple camera trick. Most of these flat earth debunking channels, SciManDan, Conspiracy Kats, Fight the Flat Earth and many others, have been proven to be propped up. False inflated subs and views, and they are all monetised and selling merch. I believe the truth should be free. Don’t you think it’s strange that if you type in a google search for ‘globe proofs’ or something similar, all you get is flat earth debunking videos?

    The track idea is just to show the difference between visual and physical phenomena. Those who try to debunk a flat/ level earth will always use visible phenomena and formal science. Never physical tangible phenomena and natural science. The tracks appearing to our eye to converge, is not the physical reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by walrus View Post
    I wish alpha could present a couple things. He has his argument I understand. However when asked to present any theory of what the earth may look like if not round, at least an iota instead of saying those who ask him about the edge are using scarecrow arguments seems short sighted. In addition why? For what reason would so many countries and private companies involved in space travel and satellite tech and communication cover this up. How would it not leak out? It would be one of the greatest cover ups in, well in anything ever. It’s just a question.
    I have said many times that I believe there may be more land. As for what shape the earth may be, I have no idea, I don’t like to make assumptions, that is what has gotten us where we are now. There are so many possibilities to the ‘why’, more land and resources, money, power, keeping us confined and controlled etc.

    The globe is a perfect prison. Humans are naturally curious. If you put a fence around us, we want to explore and find out what’s on the other side. With the globe, they have made it, so that we believe there is nothing else, that this is all there is.

    As for would it leak out, it already has, or we wouldn't be discussing this.
    No a leak would explain what it is and why we are imprisoned from the truth. It would be like Kennedy at least plausible theory’s and what and why. It wouldn’t be I don’t know and imprisoned but no idea why
    Without full exploration we don't know what it is. I don't know because I have never fully explored this place, as we are restricted. Neither have you. I have my ideas on this stuff, but like you say, they are just theories. This is why there is no point in discussing it, it doesn't present any proof for a globe and you try to use it to attack the actual argument. Natural science and the physics of tangible substances are plausible.
    you said it was leaked. So what did the leak say about what they are hiding. What did it say is the true shape of the world
    I said it has leaked, the secret is out, the veil is dropping, nothing about what they are hiding. The truth is the earth is demostrable level based on practical demonstration using the physics of tangible substances. If you wish to continue to believe you live on a spinning ball in a vacuum, that's fine with me.

    You want my 'theories' on these things, I provide them, and you're not happy with my 'theories'. Which is the very reason, I now only focus on natural science and practical demonstration.
    They live, We sleep

  11. #581
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    6,816
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    247
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    F-ck me

    They live, We sleep

  12. #582
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Fenay, Longvic
    Posts
    1,191
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    22
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatboxingfan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatboxingfan View Post
    @Alpha YOU TRUST THE PHYSICS OF THE TANGIBLE SUBSTANCE by using your eyes.

    which you said deceive you.

    Yes 'physics' through observation and experiment, actual science. Why are you avoiding first principles? I'm done with you, you are easy, spanked.
    You said we cannot trust out observations which are done with our eyes.

    ****OWNED****
    I said our senses can be fooled. Or do you disagree with that statement? We are observing the physics of a tangible substance through experiment. You don't even understand basic science.

    Cool story bro.
    are you not using your senses to read the needles on the instruments with which you are doing your experiments?

    *****OWNED, AD INFINITUM****

  13. #583
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    6,816
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    247
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fatboxingfan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatboxingfan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatboxingfan View Post
    @Alpha YOU TRUST THE PHYSICS OF THE TANGIBLE SUBSTANCE by using your eyes.

    which you said deceive you.

    Yes 'physics' through observation and experiment, actual science. Why are you avoiding first principles? I'm done with you, you are easy, spanked.
    You said we cannot trust out observations which are done with our eyes.

    ****OWNED****
    I said our senses can be fooled. Or do you disagree with that statement? We are observing the physics of a tangible substance through experiment. You don't even understand basic science.

    Cool story bro.
    are you not using your senses to read the needles on the instruments with which you are doing your experiments?

    *****OWNED, AD INFINITUM****
    Are you denying physics? Got a practical demostration yet? Spanked.

    Cool story bro.
    They live, We sleep

  14. #584
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    13,704
    Mentioned
    615 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    584
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatboxingfan View Post
    he trusts his eyes when "conducting" his "water experiemnts" but says we cant trust our eyes.
    I trust the physics of the tangible substance. Got a practical demonstration yet?

    Quote Originally Posted by walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beanz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beanz View Post
    Alpha you are confusing philosophical concepts with scientific criteria. You are basically arguing against yourself in insisting on two principles that cancel each other out.

    You are not displaying a healthy skepticism but rather a retreat into denialism. You are in one breath saying you cannot trust your eyes and at the same time demanding that the illusion of level water on the horizon be accepted as evidence despite it requiring that you deny overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

    You are also mocking Andre's bubbles for not having metals and a core when you have for the entire thread denied that is necessary and impossible to model when dealing with your own curved water around a sphere mantra.
    The physics of water are not an illusion. They are testable and demonstrable. Show me where I have ever said "level water on the horizon be accepted as evidence".

    Are you saying that when you observe railway tracks converging, that they are in reality?

    I'm not mocking Andre's bubbles, but they in no way represent in the slightest the globe model.

    You continue to misrepresent me.

    Bullshit. You continue to refuse to engage. I am using YOUR criteria and still your intellectual dishonesty is so extreme it is off the scale. Go back and address the points raised and stop evading everything. Your 'no such thing as experts' view of the world is dangerously catching on. You are pissing on the chips of other people because you want your own vinegar of opinion and belief to replace facts and real world experience. Nobody is misrepresenting you at all. We have all addressed your assertions and dreamy hallucinations and you don't have the decency to engage with anyone when it is demonstrated they are built on nonsense.

    You are a believer in something that makes you feel special, don't kid yourself that it has anything to do with science or reality.
    I am happy to engage, as I was with you, until you began insulting me again, calling me stupid and saying I don't understand. None of that proves a globe. I have also tried to with Andre, Walrus, Memphis etc. I like to set first principles, because if we don’t agree on the basics, then there is no point in discussing things further. I am happy to leave one to their beliefs.

    You appealing to authority again. You and your logical fallacies.

    Calling me dreamy isn’t a proof of the globe.

    I am the only one here presenting actual science. I am dealing in physics, but you prefer to deny the reality of the physics of tangible substances in this reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Memphis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Memphis View Post
    Alpha what do you make of this stuff?

    https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-pro...artrain.t8939/

    The water argument is a consistent one throughout the thread and one that if observed by any one of us day to day you'd have to conclude that it conforms to it's shape and is level. You really need to supersize the observation.

    A flat Earth would be good. Especially if its proof had a Truman Show type ending. That would be brilliant.
    Didn't have a look but Mick West is a shill and has been debunked over and over, as has Soundly. You will find anyone trying to debunk 'flat earth' will only ever use visual phenomena or formal science. They will never use natural science, or practical, physical demonstrations using the tangible substances of the earth. What I mean by that is, when we look down a set of railway tracks disapearing in the distance, they appear to converge, although we know in reality they are parallel. That is a visual phenomena. Physical phenomena is testing the substances, water, gases etc.

    Cool Memphis, it sounds like you do agree with one of my first principles, but I'll pop it here, you can confirm if you want.

    Would you agree that it's an objective physical truth that a body of water will always take the shape of its container and the surface will always be level?

    So at what scale do you believe the physics of water change? Because we have been told the circumference of the earth, and using geometry we can work out how much it is curving per mile. I can demonstrate the physics of water, we have used water in construction for centuries.

    The Truman Show had lots of truths in it, but also pushed the propaganda of a dome.
    I guess the answer to your question is two fold and both with the caveat that is 'as far as I can see'. I've never conducted any scientific experiments but at a very basic say what you see level, water does conform to it's container and is 'level'. Would that be the same at my local fifty meter pool or reservoir? Don't know. I could observe in both of those relatively small containers that the water is conforming to it's boundaries. level? I couldn't say, but it would look that way. I apply the same logic to putting up a shelf. Does it look level? Then that's good enough for me.

    I would imagine every flat/globe earther has been debunked and debunked again. If they weren't, we wouldn't have this thread. What is it about what I posted that you don't like? Not the people presenting it, but the methods or practices they use?

    I don't really understand the train track idea. Flat, globe, the result would be the same.
    “As far as I can see”.

    I would also add, as far as you can test and demonstrate. If at any point the altitude from one-point drops below the other, water will start to flow, to its lowest energy state. We have used water to level in construction for centuries because we understand its properties and how accurate it is. When you used a spirit level tool on your ‘shelf’, it would confirm if in fact it was level.

    Yea I don’t like Mick West, he is paid opposition. Many, many times his dishonesty has been shown. And Soundly is probably a paid shill as well. That photo for example of the bridge and water curving, is just a simple camera trick. Most of these flat earth debunking channels, SciManDan, Conspiracy Kats, Fight the Flat Earth and many others, have been proven to be propped up. False inflated subs and views, and they are all monetised and selling merch. I believe the truth should be free. Don’t you think it’s strange that if you type in a google search for ‘globe proofs’ or something similar, all you get is flat earth debunking videos?

    The track idea is just to show the difference between visual and physical phenomena. Those who try to debunk a flat/ level earth will always use visible phenomena and formal science. Never physical tangible phenomena and natural science. The tracks appearing to our eye to converge, is not the physical reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by walrus View Post
    I wish alpha could present a couple things. He has his argument I understand. However when asked to present any theory of what the earth may look like if not round, at least an iota instead of saying those who ask him about the edge are using scarecrow arguments seems short sighted. In addition why? For what reason would so many countries and private companies involved in space travel and satellite tech and communication cover this up. How would it not leak out? It would be one of the greatest cover ups in, well in anything ever. It’s just a question.
    I have said many times that I believe there may be more land. As for what shape the earth may be, I have no idea, I don’t like to make assumptions, that is what has gotten us where we are now. There are so many possibilities to the ‘why’, more land and resources, money, power, keeping us confined and controlled etc.

    The globe is a perfect prison. Humans are naturally curious. If you put a fence around us, we want to explore and find out what’s on the other side. With the globe, they have made it, so that we believe there is nothing else, that this is all there is.

    As for would it leak out, it already has, or we wouldn't be discussing this.
    No a leak would explain what it is and why we are imprisoned from the truth. It would be like Kennedy at least plausible theory’s and what and why. It wouldn’t be I don’t know and imprisoned but no idea why
    Without full exploration we don't know what it is. I don't know because I have never fully explored this place, as we are restricted. Neither have you. I have my ideas on this stuff, but like you say, they are just theories. This is why there is no point in discussing it, it doesn't present any proof for a globe and you try to use it to attack the actual argument. Natural science and the physics of tangible substances are plausible.
    you said it was leaked. So what did the leak say about what they are hiding. What did it say is the true shape of the world
    I said it has leaked, the secret is out, the veil is dropping, nothing about what they are hiding. The truth is the earth is demostrable level based on practical demonstration using the physics of tangible substances. If you wish to continue to believe you live on a spinning ball in a vacuum, that's fine with me.

    You want my 'theories' on these things, I provide them, and you're not happy with my 'theories'. Which is the very reason, I now only focus on natural science and practical demonstration.
    I’m asking what is the true shape of the earth. Why are all these governments colluding to hide the truth from us. Why are pilots lying. Who is profiting from all this. Answers to those questions would really help.

  15. #585
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Fenay, Longvic
    Posts
    1,191
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    22
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatboxingfan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatboxingfan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatboxingfan View Post
    @Alpha YOU TRUST THE PHYSICS OF THE TANGIBLE SUBSTANCE by using your eyes.

    which you said deceive you.

    Yes 'physics' through observation and experiment, actual science. Why are you avoiding first principles? I'm done with you, you are easy, spanked.
    You said we cannot trust out observations which are done with our eyes.

    ****OWNED****
    I said our senses can be fooled. Or do you disagree with that statement? We are observing the physics of a tangible substance through experiment. You don't even understand basic science.

    Cool story bro.
    are you not using your senses to read the needles on the instruments with which you are doing your experiments?

    *****OWNED, AD INFINITUM****
    Are you denying physics? Got a practical demostration yet? Spanked.

    Cool story bro.
    is physics not discovered and implemented by using the senses when reading instrumentation?

    ****OWNED****......AGAIN!

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