The earth is flat

Erfisflat

"isn't a fair debate by any means of the word. I refuted all your arguments (baseless accusation) so you resorted to insults (baseless accusation). I out insulted you so you resorted to lies(baseless accusation). I proved you liars (baseless accusation), so now you've got to resort to deleting my posts."

SilverishGoldNova

@Coveny So you admit to insults? Also I thought you said Erfisflat started the insults, not me. And then you repeatedly used insults against me when I addressed your claims. You said I was a Christian multiple times, without backing it up, and said the same about other flat Earthers and then when I addressed this you went on rants about me being a "fundamentalist" and a "witch burning murderer" witch (pun intended) is the most baseless and extreme thing you've said. Considering you have given up showing me saying I am a Christian, have you given on that alongside the proposition that I have used insults, and the proposition that calling NASA is a personal attack directed at you? If you haven't given up, don't worry, in no time you'll have to admit everything you say is a baseless accusation before the ban the admin has scheduled for you.

SilverishGoldNova

@Coveny Woah woah woah, genetic fallacy and association fallacy much?

Erfisflat

Question to globe earthers; do you actually believe that the moon is pulling AND pushing against the earth's water with a magical force named gravity, and that the moon should NOT have collapsed into earth from earth's gravitational pull?

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

Question to globe earthers; do you actually believe that the moon is pulling AND pushing against the earth's water with a magical force named gravity, and that the moon should NOT have collapsed into earth from earth's gravitational pull?

Gravity has been proven to you, and you can verify it yourself as I have shown you in the Cavendish experiment which has bee replicated many times.

Do I believe that pulling on a liquid distorts it? Yes

As you believe in magnetism you may except it as proof that it's possible to distort a liquid. As a bonus it's also proof as to why the earth is round rather than flat. (see the ferrofluid makes a ball)

Erfisflat

"Gravity has been proven to you, and you can verify it yourself as I have shown you in the Cavendish experiment which has bee replicated many times."

Nope, the Cavendish experiment only proves that people are gullible and proves it's expounders desperate to accept anything as "proof". As I said before, the experiment ignores any and all factors that might affect the experiment and give a false positive including but not limited to fault line movement, electromagnetism, the movement of the aether, and even the hum/vibrations of an external A.C. unit on the slab. Given this is the only thing anybody can pull out of the Google search and virtually no one has approached the experiment under the assumption that is could be wrong is not scientific, it's fundamentally pseudoscience. I know how you love that pseudoscience though.

"Do I believe that pulling on a liquid distorts it? Yes"

Of course it does, I haven't made a claim suggesting otherwise, building a strawman?

"As you believe in magnetism you may except it as proof that it's possible to distort a liquid. As a bonus it's also proof as to why the earth is round rather than flat. (see the ferrofluid makes a ball)"

This is an absurdly fallacious statement. How do magnets attracting and distorting ferrofluid prove that the earth is a ball? What's does this video have to do with gravity. You've also ignored the crux of my argument. The earth's water is being pushed AND pulled on each side of the ball earth in this theory against the pull of the earth's gravity. This means that the moon has enough "mass" to affect it from that distance, the earth is at the same distance (obviously) and has more mass than the moon. This many times more gravitational attraction, logically, should have pulled the entire moon to itself, if the moon is to affect the earth's water.

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

"Gravity has been proven to you, and you can verify it yourself as I have shown you in the Cavendish experiment which has bee replicated many times."

Nope, the Cavendish experiment only proves that people are gullible and proves it's expounders desperate to accept anything as "proof". As I said before, the experiment ignores any and all factors that might affect the experiment and give a false positive including but not limited to fault line movement, electromagnetism, the movement of the aether, and even the hum/vibrations of an external A.C. unit on the slab. Given this is the only thing anybody can pull out of the Google search and virtually no one has approached the experiment under the assumption that is could be wrong is not scientific, it's fundamentally pseudoscience. I know how you love that pseudoscience though.

"Do I believe that pulling on a liquid distorts it? Yes"

Of course it does, I haven't made a claim suggesting otherwise, building a strawman?

"As you believe in magnetism you may except it as proof that it's possible to distort a liquid. As a bonus it's also proof as to why the earth is round rather than flat. (see the ferrofluid makes a ball)"

This is an absurdly fallacious statement. How do magnets attracting and distorting ferrofluid prove that the earth is a ball? What's does this video have to do with gravity. You've also ignored the crux of my argument. The earth's water is being pushed AND pulled on each side of the ball earth in this theory against the pull of the earth's gravity. This means that the moon has enough "mass" to affect it from that distance, the earth is at the same distance (obviously) and has more mass than the moon. This many times more gravitational attraction, logically, should have pulled the entire moon to itself, if the moon is to affect the earth's water.

Using a bunch of words still doesn't prove anything. Fault lines? Really? Those don't affect the experiment. Electromagnetism could, but it's easy enough to use non-magnetic objects which has been done in the experiments I've shown you. Aether... seriously? I'm just going to assume you meant to say air, and again air currents have been excluded in the experiments I sent you. Vibrations wouldn't cause a positive as they are a back and forth motion. (although they could make the experiment take longer to complete) So you haven't disproven anything, you've just listed a bunch of stuff, and says it disproves the experiment when it doesn't, it doesn't even apply, or can't even do what you claim it can do. You show how much you practice pseudoscience when you say "no one has approached the experiment under the assumption that is could be wrong", this is science so every scientist is bound to try to prove it wrong. This Falsifiability and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.

As far as the strawman aspect "do you actually believe that the moon is pulling AND pushing against the earth's water". Distorting something means it's both pushed and pulled. Are you now saying that it is possible to both push and pull a liquid?

When ferrofluid is attracted to the SQUARE magnet, it creates a ball rather than a square. ergo when matter is attracted to other matter the shape it creates is a ball providing proof the earth is round.

No I didn't "ignore" your argument I countered it. If water is pushed and pulled (as happened with oil the video I shared) it gets distorted rather than acting like it normally acts.

As far as the moon being pulled into the earth I didn't think you were serious because you do actually admit to centrifugal force, and use it in your arguments against water staying on the planet surface. So this one you should be able to figure out even with the small subset of science that you accept.

Evidence

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Question to globe earthers; do you actually believe that the moon is pulling AND pushing against the earth's water with a magical force named gravity, and that the moon should NOT have collapsed into earth from earth's gravitational pull?

Gravity has been proven to you, and you can verify it yourself as I have shown you in the Cavendish experiment which has bee replicated many times.

Do I believe that pulling on a liquid distorts it? Yes

As you believe in magnetism you may except it as proof that it's possible to distort a liquid. As a bonus it's also proof as to why the earth is round rather than flat. (see the ferrofluid makes a ball)

OK, then explain time 4:50 ?

where on NASA's Blue Marble do you see the flat spots, huh? Or on any other NASA Earth planet photo?

How about Mars? Jupiter, .. all have N-S poles yet no flat area in the center!?

Erfisflat

@coveny ;

"Using a bunch of words still doesn't prove anything."

Really? Isn't that what you are doing to try and prove something? This is a very asinine statement, even coming from you. I can pull up countless instances of you using words to prove something.

"Fault lines? Really? Those don't affect the experiment."

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/throwing-stones-everyones-favorite-fallacy

Yes, really, tectonic plates are always moving, this movement is virtually undetectable, minute jiggles until they reach earthquake status. Are there any steps that are performed to be sure that this factor is taken into consideration? Didn't think so.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/tectonics.html

Since the whole experiment is anchored to a tectonic plate, which is continuously moving, and gravity is undetectable by any instrument, saying that an undetectable force is more liable for the movement of anything anchored to it is nonsense. If there were multiple experiments that suggest an attraction between all objects, as there should be, it might be more feasible. Until then, those objects are no more attracted to each other than this car and this van.

"Electromagnetism could, but it's easy enough to use non-magnetic objects which has been done in the experiments I've shown you."

The only objects you've shown me are magnetic if I'm not mistaken. Even metals that are non-magnetic have some reaction to electromagnetic fields. These electromagnetic fields are all over the earth and are detectable and well established as fact, not theoretical like gravity.

"Aether... seriously?"

Yes, I said what I meant. Its basically a rotating electromagnetic field as in your model, with the obvious difference being it rotates (not the earth as you still hold as fact, and is not detectable) over a flat earth. The Aether has been proven to exist with valid experimentation (http://www.orgonelab.org/DynamicEther.pdf) and could explain any the Cavendish experiment or with any combination of the above. Again, no steps have been taken to differentiate between these and the imaginary force of gravity.

"Vibrations wouldn't cause a positive as they are a back and forth motion."

Basic physics explains that those objects would take the path of least resistance. How does gravity (which is supposedly an attraction force) cause a back and forth (push and repel) motion?

"You show how much you practice pseudoscience when you say "no one has approached the experiment under the assumption that is could be wrong"

Me making a statement that the experiment is unfalsifiable or has so far not been shown to be so is practicing pseudoscience? Explain this asinine claim. I'm saying no one has performed the experiment or a variant under the assumption that the experiment could be wrong. The experiment has been stuck in the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" phase for two hundred years, since before electromagnetism was discovered, and almost 100 years before the first lightbulb was even invented. Yet people still hold this experiment in the highest regards, rejecting any notion of criticism in any form. This is not science, this is dogmatic.

If your claim is that it has, then by all means, cite the experiment. Add to that the fact that this is apparently the only experiment that supposedly proves the theory of gravity, despite 200 years of advancements in all relative fields, and I think you can see the reason for my skepticism.

"When ferrofluid is attracted to the SQUARE magnet, it creates a ball rather than a square. ergo when matter is attracted to other matter the shape it creates is a ball providing proof the earth is round."

This does such a thing that's preposterous. The ferrous fluid is attracted to the magnetic field of the magnet, which is circular. Again magnetism is an observable on any scale force. How you get from there to "when matter is attracted to other matter..." to "...the shape it creates is a ball providing proof the earth is round." you'll have to explain, in detail so that someone can understand because right now this is illogical.

"No I didn't "ignore" your argument I countered it. If water is pushed and pulled (as happened with oil the video I shared) it gets distorted rather than acting like it normally acts."

Again, the video is dealing with magnetism, which is observable science. When you can show me a fluid being distorted due to an object's mass alone, we'll have some actual science, not pseudoscientific claims with no practical evidence. Call this my "put up or ".

"As far as the moon being pulled into the earth I didn't think you were serious because you do actually admit to centrifugal force, and use it in your arguments against water staying on the planet surface. So this one you should be able to figure out even with the small subset of science that you accept."

So your claim is now that centrifugal force causes tides? Do you have any logical reason, evidence or source for this claim. You do realize that centrifugal force would be uniform along the equator, which is the exact opposite of what the very definition of what tides are?

Erfisflat

It's a simple question.

Coveny

Evidence said:
OK, then explain time 4:50 ?

where on NASA's Blue Marble do you see the flat spots, huh? Or on any other NASA Earth planet photo?

How about Mars? Jupiter, .. all have N-S poles yet no flat area in the center!?

It's almost like the earth isn't made up of ferrofluid or something. The general shape of it is still round... not flat. As for how smooth it is... that varies by material.

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

@coveny ;

"Using a bunch of words still doesn't prove anything."

Really? Isn't that what you are doing to try and prove something? This is a very asinine statement, even coming from you. I can pull up countless instances of you using words to prove something.
Quoting Out of Context Fallacy and you are just looking at the first part of it. It reference the words you used, just just the use of words.

"Fault lines? Really? Those don't affect the experiment."

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/throwing-stones-everyones-favorite-fallacy

Yes, really, tectonic plates are always moving, this movement is virtually undetectable, minute jiggles until they reach earthquake status. Are there any steps that are performed to be sure that this factor is taken into consideration? Didn't think so.
No not really. One minute you are saying they are "virtually undetectable" and the next you say they invalidate the experiment. I side with the bi-polar part of you that lists them as "virtually undetectable". So again they don't affect the experiment.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/tectonics.html

Since the whole experiment is anchored to a tectonic plate, which is continuously moving, and gravity is undetectable by any instrument, saying that an undetectable force is more liable for the movement of anything anchored to it is nonsense. If there were multiple experiments that suggest an attraction between all objects, as there should be, it might be more feasible. Until then, those objects are no more attracted to each other than this car and this van.

Gravity is detectable by simple set of scales you can buy at walmart. I haven't said the force is undetectable like your fault lines. That is a strawman fallacy.

"Electromagnetism could, but it's easy enough to use non-magnetic objects which has been done in the experiments I've shown you."

The only objects you've shown me are magnetic if I'm not mistaken. Even metals that are non-magnetic have some reaction to electromagnetic fields. These electromagnetic fields are all over the earth and are detectable and well established as fact, not theoretical like gravity.
Cite your prove that wood, string, and bowling balls (plastic) "react" to electromagnetic fields.

"Aether... seriously?"

Yes, I said what I meant. Its basically a rotating electromagnetic field as in your model, with the obvious difference being it rotates (not the earth as you still hold as fact, and is not detectable) over a flat earth. The Aether has been proven to exist with valid experimentation (http://www.orgonelab.org/DynamicEther.pdf) and could explain any the Cavendish experiment or with any combination of the above. Again, no steps have been taken to differentiate between these and the imaginary force of gravity.
Cite your proof for the existence of aether. The paper you linked doesn't have the word aether in it once.

"Vibrations wouldn't cause a positive as they are a back and forth motion."

Basic physics explains that those objects would take the path of least resistance. How does gravity (which is supposedly an attraction force) cause a back and forth (push and repel) motion?
I didn't say gravity created a back and forth motion don't strawman me.

"You show how much you practice pseudoscience when you say "no one has approached the experiment under the assumption that is could be wrong"

Me making a statement that the experiment is unfalsifiable or has so far not been shown to be so is practicing pseudoscience? Explain this asinine claim. I'm saying no one has performed the experiment or a variant under the assumption that the experiment could be wrong. The experiment has been stuck in the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" phase for two hundred years, since before electromagnetism was discovered, and almost 100 years before the first lightbulb was even invented. Yet people still hold this experiment in the highest regards, rejecting any notion of criticism in any form. This is not science, this is dogmatic.
Gravity is falsifiable very easily, but it hasn't be proven false, you attack it with fault lines, vibrations, and what pasted as knowledge to the greeks. All of which is unfalsifiable... or pseudoscience. It has not been proven false, yet the methods you use have been proven false.

If your claim is that it has, then by all means, cite the experiment. Add to that the fact that this is apparently the only experiment that supposedly proves the theory of gravity, despite 200 years of advancements in all relative fields, and I think you can see the reason for my skepticism.
I have cited the experiment, and no I don't see the reason for your skepticism. You have no proven the experiment false, and have no reasonable alternative.

"When ferrofluid is attracted to the SQUARE magnet, it creates a ball rather than a square. ergo when matter is attracted to other matter the shape it creates is a ball providing proof the earth is round."

This does such a thing that's preposterous. The ferrous fluid is attracted to the magnetic field of the magnet, which is circular. Again magnetism is an observable on any scale force. How you get from there to "when matter is attracted to other matter..." to "...the shape it creates is a ball providing proof the earth is round." you'll have to explain, in detail so that someone can understand because right now this is illogical.
I have explained, it's not my fault you can't understand. There aren't a lot of examples of attraction like magnetism and gravity, but the examples that exist create round objects. Not flat planes.

"No I didn't "ignore" your argument I countered it. If water is pushed and pulled (as happened with oil the video I shared) it gets distorted rather than acting like it normally acts."

Again, the video is dealing with magnetism, which is observable science. When you can show me a fluid being distorted due to an object's mass alone, we'll have some actual science, not pseudoscientific claims with no practical evidence. Call this my "put up or ".
Observable just like gravity. I've shown you fluid being distorted by an object's mass alone the oceans... it's the debate we are having right now please stay focused. I have put up, now please .

"As far as the moon being pulled into the earth I didn't think you were serious because you do actually admit to centrifugal force, and use it in your arguments against water staying on the planet surface. So this one you should be able to figure out even with the small subset of science that you accept."

So your claim is now that centrifugal force causes tides? Do you have any logical reason, evidence or source for this claim. You do realize that centrifugal force would be uniform along the equator, which is the exact opposite of what the very definition of what tides are?

That response was about the moon crashing into the earth not the tides, again stop strawmaning me.

PS I thought you were done talking to me. I guess this makes another case of you being a . What are we up to now like 4 times I've proven you a ?

Image: http://debateisland.com/uploads/editor/la/p4ucroymkz9h.jpg

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

It's a simple question.

Nothing "attracts that" the water is distorted as I've previously mentioned, it's a simply answer.

Erfisflat

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

It's a simple question.

Nothing "attracts that" the water is distorted as I've previously mentioned, it's a simply answer.

You can't redefine gravity from an attraction force to a "distortion force" to suit your needs.

Evidence

@Coveny said: It's almost like the earth isn't made up of ferrofluid or something. The general shape of it is still round... not flat. As for how smooth it is... that varies by material.

Then stop showing us square magnets and ferrofluids to try to prove something you claim is not.

Every Big-bang related proof of your globe earth quantum Relativistic gravity expanding vacuum universe uses examples of real scientifically observed effects, then distort it, turn it into mathematical equations and so on to explain their sci-fi fairytales.

density and buoyancy - to explain gravity
the Doppler effect which is what happens to a siren traveling through air - to explain the redshift expanding vacuum. Show me how you can expand vacuum-space by adding gravity, then I'll take this redshift-blueshit seriously.
The raison bread expanding dough - to explain how the galaxies and planets expand with the universe, which at the beginning traveled 186,282 times the speed of light, (as in Einstein's E=MC^2 formula) that created mass with no noted "special relativistic effects" ever. Even after 13.75 Billion years not showing any slowing down! Every object in your universe would be experiencing special relativistic effects like time dilation, but noo, the earth is still 13.75 billion years old, .. lol.

If gravity is real, then it should work on all scales. Get your cellphone and call up the Scientists on the ISS, and ask them to put a 15lb bowling ball outside the Station in the vacuum of space, with a small marble next to it. Put their camera on it, and let's see the marble roll on the space fabric and go into orbit around the bowling ball?

But nooo, all they do up there is squirt water around and do backflips, which they charge us billions of dollars for. Man, .. I sure would like to get a billion dollars for each backflip in space, wouldn't you @Erfisflat?

Evidence

@Coveny I have explained, it's not my fault you can't understand. There aren't a lot of examples of attraction like magnetism and gravity, but the examples that exist create round objects. Not flat planes.

Liquid bunches up into a ball in freefall as witnessed on both private, and NASA Zero-G planes, no need for magnets. Doesn't prove either gravity, nor spacevacuum, or spacefabric.

Let us talk to those NASL ISS Astronaut-scientists instead of them always talking to kindergartners and first graders while playing with their perms, and flipping the microphone, and let me ask them to put a bowling ball and a marble in spacevacuum, put a camera on it and let us monitor it from down here? Better not see any strings on them either! And no cartoons, but actual live-feed.

Oh yeah, make sure it's between them, and earth, so we could see the earth from space instead of only that old fake CGI picture.
Heck, I had more excitement watching a snow-globes and playing chess with pigeons then what we have seen broadcasted from the $10 Billion dollar a month ISS in the past 10 years!

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

It's a simple question.

Nothing "attracts that" the water is distorted as I've previously mentioned, it's a simply answer.

You can't redefine gravity from an attraction force to a "distortion force" to suit your needs.

I haven't. If you pull on only one side of something that's liquid it distorts it. There is no contradiction.

Erfisflat

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

It's a simple question.

Nothing "attracts that" the water is distorted as I've previously mentioned, it's a simply answer.

You can't redefine gravity from an attraction force to a "distortion force" to suit your needs.

I haven't. If you pull on only one side of something that's liquid it distorts it. There is no contradiction.

Yeah, you're just grasping at straws

Coveny

@Evidence sadly I don't have the ability to use an 8,000 mile in diameter object for my examples. As for everything working regardless of the scale, please prove that claim. I'd like to see you start with ants ability to support 5,000 times their body weight, and apply it to other larger creatures. Because does size matter.

Erfisflat

Coveny said:

@Evidence sadly I don't have the ability to use an 8,000 mile in diameter object for my examples. As for everything working regardless of the scale, please prove that claim. I'd like to see you start with ants ability to support 5,000 times their body weight, and apply it to other larger creatures. Because does size matter.

You can't scale the ants strength up because the ant has no equivalent for strength per weight, pseudoscientist. This is some pispoor logic.

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

@Evidence sadly I don't have the ability to use an 8,000 mile in diameter object for my examples. As for everything working regardless of the scale, please prove that claim. I'd like to see you start with ants ability to support 5,000 times their body weight, and apply it to other larger creatures. Because does size matter.

You can't scale the ants strength up because the ant has no equivalent for strength per weight, pseudoscientist. This is some pispoor logic.

No the claim that every experiment should scale is "pispoor" logic. Also because it bugs me, the reason ants strength doesn't scale is because of physics. Bone can support a given weight, the ant's small weight allows their bones (chitin) to support a higher weight ratio because they are small. If someone tried to scale it, the bones would break, because not all experiments can be scaled. Some only function at certain sizes or quantities.

Erfisflat

@Coveny

Since you are so keen on using the magnet and fluid as a valid comparison, in our case, the fluid would be, if put to scale, several miles away from the fluid. How about an orbiting fluid around a magnet video?

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

@Coveny

Since you are so keen on using the magnet and fluid as a valid comparison, in our case, the fluid would be, if put to scale, several miles away from the fluid. How about an orbiting fluid around a magnet video?

Sadly I don't have access to space flight to "prove" science, we already know, to you, but if you could get me funded I would be more that willing the waste the money to create that experiment for you. Until then you'll just have to deal with the ferrofluid in water as it's the closest example that you're going to get. Watch how one magnet's (earth) globe of ferrofluid is distorted and elongated by a second magnet (moon) and the ferrofluid takes odd non-round shapes in response. Likely because of the surface tension of the oil even though it's submerged in water, but to be fair I don't know for certain that their aren't other factors at play.

Erfisflat

I'm pretty certain you're just pretending to know a LOT more than you actually do. You just reworded my counterargument to that trying to form a contradiction where there is none. The proper (and only way) to scale the experiment is to use a comparable tinsel strength material, such as steel or titanium. Since bone apparently would have a lower tinsel strength than chitin, the comparison would be false, and the scaling would be off. Scaling is an important part of experimentation and the lack of scaling is a clear sign of pseudoscience, or in your case, an even more clear sign of a lack of intelligence on the matter.

"Sadly I don't have access to space flight to "prove" science, we already know, to you, but if you could get me funded I would be more that willing the waste the money to create that experiment for you. Until then you'll just have to deal with the ferrofluid in water as it's the closest example that you're going to get.

It should be close enough, water is essentially a weightless environment. This is why astronots practice (and give us some live feed) in pools.

http://lmgtfy.com/?t=v&q=Bubbles+in+space

"Watch how one magnet's (earth) globe of ferrofluid is distorted and elongated by a second magnet (moon) and the ferrofluid takes odd non-round shapes in response. Likely because of the surface tension of the oil even though it's submerged in water, but to be fair I don't know for certain that their aren't other factors at play."

This is not a valid comparison and you know it. Either you attempting to take me for a fool or you are completely oblivious to anything involving the scientific method.
The magnets are attracting each other and the fluid, but that is about where the similarities for a valid scale comparison end.

The approaching magnet pulls the liquid toward it, and some liquid seperates completely toward the new magnet. We don't see bodies of water go flying off towards the moon as it passes, an obvious difference. We curiously enough, do not see rivers, lakes, or creeks with tides. With this observation we can conclude that there is no attracting force or that we can no longer use magnets and ferro fluid as a valid comparison.

In this instance, the shape that the earth's water conforms to is elliptical, this shape is found nowhere in your demonstration with magnets, which means that it is pseudoscience until it can be demonstrated.

"PS I thought you were done talking to me. I guess this makes another case of you being a . What are we up to now like 4 times I've proven you a ?"

I said I wouldn't respond unless you had a coherent, half logical argument or rebuttal to offer. You responded at first with such but now you're just grasping at straws and strawmen.

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

I'm pretty certain you're just pretending to know a LOT more than you actually do. You just reworded my counterargument to that trying to form a contradiction where there is none. The proper (and only way) to scale the experiment is to use a comparable tinsel strength material, such as steel or titanium. Since bone apparently would have a lower tinsel strength than chitin, the comparison would be false, and the scaling would be off. Scaling is an important part of experimentation and the lack of scaling is a clear sign of pseudoscience, or in your case, an even more clear sign of a lack of intelligence on the matter.

"Sadly I don't have access to space flight to "prove" science, we already know, to you, but if you could get me funded I would be more that willing the waste the money to create that experiment for you. Until then you'll just have to deal with the ferrofluid in water as it's the closest example that you're going to get.

It should be close enough, water is essentially a weightless environment. This is why astronots practice (and give us some live feed) in pools.

http://lmgtfy.com/?t=v&q=Bubbles+in+space

"Watch how one magnet's (earth) globe of ferrofluid is distorted and elongated by a second magnet (moon) and the ferrofluid takes odd non-round shapes in response. Likely because of the surface tension of the oil even though it's submerged in water, but to be fair I don't know for certain that their aren't other factors at play."

This is not a valid comparison and you know it. Either you attempting to take me for a fool or you are completely oblivious to anything involving the scientific method.
The magnets are attracting each other and the fluid, but that is about where the similarities for a valid scale comparison end.

The approaching magnet pulls the liquid toward it, and some liquid seperates completely toward the new magnet. We don't see bodies of water go flying off towards the moon as it passes, an obvious difference. We curiously enough, do not see rivers, lakes, or creeks with tides. With this observation we can conclude that there is no attracting force or that we can no longer use magnets and ferro fluid as a valid comparison.

In this instance, the shape that the earth's water conforms to is elliptical, this shape is found nowhere in your demonstration with magnets, which means that it is pseudoscience until it can be demonstrated.

"PS I thought you were done talking to me. I guess this makes another case of you being a . What are we up to now like 4 times I've proven you a ?"

I said I wouldn't respond unless you had a coherent, half logical argument or rebuttal to offer. You responded at first with such but now you're just grasping at straws and strawmen.

Steal makes it even harder to scale the experiment because it weights more for the support strength, but you don't know anything about science do you? You just spout pseudoscience...

Lack of scaling is NOT a clear sign of pseudoscience, but you lack of knowledge is. I'll say again size matters.

So ferrofluid in water isn't a good example ofhow water is distorted on the earth, but somehow you want me to prove liquids get distorted by having a human in a pool?

As far "elliptical, this shape is found nowhere in your demonstration with magnets" and the video goes.

Before the second magnet rounded:

Image: http://www.debateisland.com/uploads/editor/pt/dzn4p67ztbwt.jpg

After the second magnet elliptical

Image: http://www.debateisland.com/uploads/editor/xi/55jzzaf8bpug.jpg

:

Now had he put the magnet in the water, and positioned the second magnet you would notice a mirrored effect on the other side, but the glass prevents this.

Whatever you need to tell yourself...

Erfisflat

He's just making it up as he goes! What a tool

Erfisflat

@Coveny
Now you've turned back to strawmen, weak analogies, red herrings and pseudoscientific, baseless and unsupported assumptions.

Do you even logic ?
http://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/

Wake

Imagine just how egotistical Erfy and Silver are to believe that the Earth is the center of the universe and that all things revolve around them. To argue that every other body in the universe is round but the Earth is flat is a point the shows that the point has to be on the top of your head. That you have a personal need to feel so important that you think that you actually are the center of the universe.

SilverishGoldNova

@Wake

"Imagine just how egotistical Erfy and Silver are to believe that the Earth is the center of the universe and that all things revolve around them."

It's not "egotistical", it's actually been well proven. But you want to blindly believe in heliocentrism, and you hate it because it's irrefutable evidence.

Since when did we ever say that "every other body in the universe is round"? Otherwise admit your strawman fallacy.

fea

SilverishGoldNova said:

@Wake ;

"Imagine just how egotistical Erfy and Silver are to believe that the Earth is the center of the universe and that all things revolve around them."

It's not "egotistical", it's actually been well proven. But you want to blindly believe in heliocentrism, and you hate it because it's irrefutable evidence.

Since when did we ever say that "every other body in the universe is round"? Otherwise admit your strawman fallacy.

The majority of globers you have wasted your time trying to debate don't care about what you are saying, they have no real rebuttals, and resort to fallacies if you say ANYTHING.

SilverishGoldNova

fea said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

@Wake Since when did we ever say that "every other body in the universe is round"? Otherwise admit your strawman fallacy.

The majority of globers you have wasted your time trying to debate don't care about what you are saying, they have no real rebuttals, and resort to fallacies if you say ANYTHING.

@Erfisflat I agree with FEA, you? I think it's best for us to not respond to anyone, unless they bring up a LEGITMATE ARGUMENT/REBUTTAL that hasn't been refuted yet. If they begin to resort to fallacious stupidity, ignore them.

Erfisflat

"Imagine just how egotistical Erfy and Silver are to believe that the Earth is the center of the universe and that all things revolve around them."

It's not egotistical, it's evidence of Creationism. You hate it because it's irrefutable. To be perfectly clear, the universe doesn't revolve around me or silver specifically, just the north pole.

Image: https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/7/70/SunAnimation.gif/270px-SunAnimation.gif

" To argue that every other body in the universe is round but the Earth is flat is a point the shows that the point has to be on the top of your head. "

Nobody here has stated this argument.

Erfisflat

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

@Coveny
Now you've turned back to strawmen, weak analogies, red herrings and pseudoscientific, baseless and unsupported assumptions.

Do you even logic ?
http://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/

I prove your fallacies, lies and pseudoscience and call you out on them, so like a 6 year old you do an "I'm rubber, you're glue". This is my shocked face.

I do logic very well, but you have no idea what it looks like because you can't get past your bible and the fantasy pancake you live on.

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

"Imagine just how egotistical Erfy and Silver are to believe that the Earth is the center of the universe and that all things revolve around them."

It's not egotistical, it's evidence of Creationism. You hate it because it's irrefutable. To be perfectly clear, the universe doesn't revolve around me or silver specifically, just the north pole.

" To argue that every other body in the universe is round but the Earth is flat is a point the shows that the point has to be on the top of your head. "

Nobody here has stated this argument.

Look now you bring in your theism and talk about creationism which is what the WHOLE flat earth thing is about. It's anti-science theology because you can't handle the cognitive dissonance. It's been refuted but you can't accepted. You can't explain how it works so you resort to insults, ridicule, and lies. pseudoscience to prove the existence of yahweh so you don't have to feel like your world view is... how did SilverishGoldNova put... oh ya . Your world view is , covered in pseudoscience.

Evidence

Coveny said:

@Evidence sadly I don't have the ability to use an 8,000 mile in diameter object for my examples. As for everything working regardless of the scale, please prove that claim. I'd like to see you start with ants ability to support 5,000 times their body weight, and apply it to other larger creatures. Because does size matter.

@Coveny neither does NASA have an 8,000 mile diameter object for their example, OK!? All I asked is that ISS put a bowling ball and a small marble out in Spacetime and watch the uneven distribution of mass cause a consequence that will force, .. umm not force, gravity is not a force, but umm, .. oh yeah, to mathematically fuse the three dimensions of space, and the one dimension of time into a single 4‑dimensional continuum that will consequence the marble to orbit the bowling ball? Is this too much to ask?

How long? Oh for the next, umm, .. not millions of years, but I will be happy to se a few days of it!?

SilverishGoldNova

Credit to @Erfisflat ; gahahahahaha

Image: http://debateisland.com/uploads/editor/s1/lvr90e1zkzeh.jpg

Coveny

Evidence said:

Coveny said:

@Evidence sadly I don't have the ability to use an 8,000 mile in diameter object for my examples. As for everything working regardless of the scale, please prove that claim. I'd like to see you start with ants ability to support 5,000 times their body weight, and apply it to other larger creatures. Because does size matter.

@Coveny neither does NASA have an 8,000 mile diameter object for their example, OK!? All I asked is that ISS put a bowling ball and a small marble out in Spacetime and watch the uneven distribution of mass cause a consequence that will force, .. umm not force, gravity is not a force, but umm, .. oh yeah, to mathematically fuse the three dimensions of space, and the one dimension of time into a single 4‑dimensional continuum that will consequence the marble to orbit the bowling ball? Is this too much to ask?

How long? Oh for the next, umm, .. not millions of years, but I will be happy to se a few days of it!?

Interesting... so the flat earth isn't 8,000 miles in diameter. How small is the earth in your thousands of year old text created by desert people?

Coveny

@SilverishGoldNova oh look you are calling people retards and idiots who disagree with you. This is my shocked face...

Erfisflat

@silverishgoldnova all he cares about is denying theism.

Erfisflat

Coveny said:

Evidence said:

Coveny said:

@Evidence sadly I don't have the ability to use an 8,000 mile in diameter object for my examples. As for everything working regardless of the scale, please prove that claim. I'd like to see you start with ants ability to support 5,000 times their body weight, and apply it to other larger creatures. Because does size matter.

@Coveny neither does NASA have an 8,000 mile diameter object for their example, OK!? All I asked is that ISS put a bowling ball and a small marble out in Spacetime and watch the uneven distribution of mass cause a consequence that will force, .. umm not force, gravity is not a force, but umm, .. oh yeah, to mathematically fuse the three dimensions of space, and the one dimension of time into a single 4‑dimensional continuum that will consequence the marble to orbit the bowling ball? Is this too much to ask?

How long? Oh for the next, umm, .. not millions of years, but I will be happy to se a few days of it!?

Interesting... so the flat earth isn't 8,000 miles in diameter. How small is the earth in your thousands of year old text created by desert people?

It's like you have reading comprehension problems or something. When did he say the earth was any size?

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Evidence said:

Coveny said:

@Evidence sadly I don't have the ability to use an 8,000 mile in diameter object for my examples.

@Coveny neither does NASA have an 8,000 mile diameter object for their example, OK!?

Interesting... so the flat earth isn't 8,000 miles in diameter. How small is the earth in your thousands of year old text created by desert people?

It's like you have reading comprehension problems or something. When did he say the earth was any size?

Well you did say that NASA didn't have an 8,000 mile diameter object... that sounds like something about size to me. What were your referencing if not size?

Erfisflat

Yup clear reading comprehension problems. Thanks for confirmation.

Erfisflat

Take your incoherent babbling back to the religion debates @Coveny

Christ

Erfisflat said:

I'm not satisfied with modern scientism's explanation for the "universe". I've searched the internet for two years now and the only proof I've found for such is pseudoscience and other logical fallacies. Maybe someone can point me in the right direction. What I'm looking for is actual curvature or axial rotation from independent, non-manipulated imagery or logic. Such from government sources and space agencies are demonstrably unreliable.

How come all the planets are round, but Earth is flat?

Christ

Erfisflat said:

I'm not satisfied with modern scientism's explanation for the "universe". I've searched the internet for two years now and the only proof I've found for such is pseudoscience and other logical fallacies. Maybe someone can point me in the right direction. What I'm looking for is actual curvature or axial rotation from independent, non-manipulated imagery or logic. Such from government sources and space agencies are demonstrably unreliable.

How come all the planets are round, but Earth is flat?

SilverishGoldNova

Christ said:

Erfisflat said:

I'm not satisfied with modern scientism's explanation for the "universe". I've searched the internet for two years now and the only proof I've found for such is pseudoscience and other logical fallacies. Maybe someone can point me in the right direction. What I'm looking for is actual curvature or axial rotation from independent, non-manipulated imagery or logic. Such from government sources and space agencies are demonstrably unreliable.

How come all the planets are round, but Earth is flat?

Because nobody was ever making that argument. What we view as space is just the firmament

SilverishGoldNova

Coveny said:

@SilverishGoldNova oh look you are calling people retards and idiots who disagree with you. This is my shocked face...

If anyone is calling someone retarded it's Erf because he made it lol.

Coveny

@SilverishGoldNova if you use the meme, you have to take responsibility for it....

Erfisflat

Christ said:

Erfisflat said:

I'm not satisfied with modern scientism's explanation for the "universe". I've searched the internet for two years now and the only proof I've found for such is pseudoscience and other logical fallacies. Maybe someone can point me in the right direction. What I'm looking for is actual curvature or axial rotation from independent, non-manipulated imagery or logic. Such from government sources and space agencies are demonstrably unreliable.

How come all the planets are round, but Earth is flat?

Why are all the pool balls spherical, but the table is flat?

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Potential TikTok ban signed into law

In this Debate

The earth is flat

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch