The earth is flat

Fredsnephew

Erfisflat said:

Fredsnephew said:

Who controlled all this conspiratorial stuff prior to N.A.S.A. (1958).
And who controlled everything 500 years ago, 1000 years ago etc.

Also.
If your flat Earth model is accurate. Why is there a seasonal variation in day length at the north pole.

Before the 50's nobody could get far enough away from the earth to see that it was flat. 

What about seasonal day length at the north pole.
And how come you are so certain that the Earth is flat.
What would the benefit be to N.A.S.A. in telling everyone that the Earth is spherical rather than flat.
And are Roscosmos and all other space agencies colluding with N.A.S.A.

In light of your revelations, these are all things we need answers to.

Also. Can you explain what the Sun is and how it functions in your model.
Sorry. I haven't the time to plough through 18 pages.

Coveny

Fredsnephew said:

Erfisflat said:

Fredsnephew said:

Who controlled all this conspiratorial stuff prior to N.A.S.A. (1958).
And who controlled everything 500 years ago, 1000 years ago etc.

Also.
If your flat Earth model is accurate. Why is there a seasonal variation in day length at the north pole.

Before the 50's nobody could get far enough away from the earth to see that it was flat. 

What about seasonal day length at the north pole.
And how come you are so certain that the Earth is flat.
What would the benefit be to N.A.S.A. in telling everyone that the Earth is spherical rather than flat.
And are Roscosmos and all other space agencies colluding with N.A.S.A.

In light of your revelations, these are all things we need answers to.

Also. Can you explain what the Sun is and how it functions in your model.
Sorry. I haven't the time to plough through 18 pages.

Let me save you the time, I'll summarize their position. Any pictures and all countries in the world are working together to keep the citizens "fooled" into thinking the world is a globe so that we won't have a problem paying tax money for space exploration. There are no planets, they are just light, and the mars trip just like the pictures of earth are all fake. Their "reason" for the sun and moon working the way they do is they are close (6,000 miles away) and too dim for us to see if they aren't directly overhead. Any problems their model has with the sun and moon disappearing below the horizon are solved by the magic of perspective and refraction which can block out light and change paths in their fantasy. Even though moving the path of the sun or moon in their model would mean that half the world stay in darkness for months, there reason for the seasons is that the sun goes further away from the north pole (and speeds it's rotation up to maintain the 24hr cycle) as well as getting closer to the south pole. (and slows it's rotation down)

None of which makes any sense, but it's all based on religion rather than science or facts. This whole post is about trying to discredit science and find holes in it's knowledge. Anything they can do to cast doubt on scientific progress we've made that contradicts the bible. if you pay attention you'll notice they don't hold the same standards on the science that doesn't contradict the bible, they have not problem going to the doctor, using cell phones, GPS, or depending on any of those technologies/advancements. But go against their sky fairy and the cognitive dissonance begins and they won't accept it and start trying to sabotage it.

SilverishGoldNova

Coveny said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

You seem to be a photographer expert what kind of camera can take a clear picture of an object that's around 8,000 miles in diameter? If you don't think that picture is a compositions of multiple pictures, then you'll need to explain how to take that picture WITHOUT gluing multiple pictures together. Because I think you're gonna have some problems getting that picture into focus...

The fact that NASA supposedly went to the moon 6 times so easily 50 years ago and is now supposedly sending probes to Jupiter, yet despite this all we get is composites. Not to mention the fact you didnt even try to address the C/P clouds. 

Atleast you're trying to make counter-arguments unlike before when you used nothing but ad homs 

Erfisflat

"If you make a claim that “not everything exhibits an attraction to another” you need to prove that claim. I’ll wait for your prove."

This is a shifting the burden fallacy, but I'll play along. It's quite obvious that "not everything exhibits an attraction to another”. We see this in everyday observations. A man jumping from a plane at 10,000 feet does not get yo-yoed back to his plane. We can see how magnets are attracted to each other plain and simple. They get stronger with proximity, and then they snap together.

 I drop a rock from a sheer cliff and the rock is not affected by ANY of that mass, it falls vertically as anything else does. If evolution and gravity were true, both are taught as curriculum to children as dogmatic fact, we would have evolved as pancake people.

??"If there isn’t gravity it makes no difference if the objects “below” are less dense, because nothing creates movement (such as what we see in space)."??



"As for Newton’s quote… have you never been around a magnet? They operate and affect other matter without mutual contact. We learn more every day… catch up."

We know how magnets work, we can put two magnets in close proximity and see the snap together. We can detect their fields. This is demonstrable. Not so with gravity. All we can demonstrate with gravity is that (most of the time) things fall vertically til they hit something more dense that it is. This means that up is always up, and down is always down. I've already proved the flat earth, last nail in the coffin is coming soon. A submarine in water sinks by taking the mass(air) away, add the mass (air) and it rises. Same with a balloon. It's called buoyancy, in air, and water. 

"I send you two videos of the Cavendish experiment being replicated, but you say it’s never been replicated."

False.

rep·li·cate

verb

ˈrepləˌkāt/

1. 1.

   make an exact copy of; reproduce
   
   You have given me some diagrams and some dumbells.  Even if the experiment were performed millions of times, does this somehow give it statistical infallibility by numbers? That's an unusually weak argument. Any one of us, off the top of his head, could list a hundred instances where centuries of very smart people were completely wrong about a given “fact.” Most of us know that gravity is one of the biggest mysteries ever, but you're stuck to it like dogma. We see scientists in other centuries overthrowing ridiculous dogma and we cheer them, but we do not welcome the overthrow of our own dogma? You'll accept the new ideas from dead scientists at the drop of a dime, because the new is worn off. Why not welcome new ideas today? Have you gotten two attached to your new religion that you'd never even consider an alternative than what your science book says?
   
   "Up is up and down is down doesn’t contradict the ball earth model"
   
   Yes, yes it does. On a ball, there is no up or down, it's "relative".
   
   "Red herring."
   
   What is?
   
   "So because we don’t fully understand it, it must be untrue?"
   
   No. Because we are so limited on evidence for this, limited on knowledge AND the earth is flat, it can be untrue. You believe what you want, I could care less at this point.
   
   "In the flat earth model, how do the sun and moon stay in the sky rather than coming down?"
   
   There are theories. Mine is 
   
   
   
   Do your own research. Don't listen to me.
   
   
   

Erfisflat

"What about seasonal day length at the north pole."

What do you mean? The arctic midnight sun?

"And how come you are so certain that the Earth is flat."

I have measured it.

"What would the benefit be to N.A.S.A. in telling everyone that the Earth is spherical rather than flat."

The EDGE - Flat Earth Dome Firmament Discovery x Cover Up | THE COMPLETE STORY [by Feed Your Mind]:

"And are Roscosmos and all other space agencies colluding with N.A.S.A."

Obviously.

"Also. Can you explain what the Sun is and how it functions in your model.
Sorry. I haven't the time to plough through 18 pages."

There are theories. I think Tesla knew. 

Erfisflat

Coveny said:

Fredsnephew said:

Erfisflat said:

Fredsnephew said:

Who controlled all this conspiratorial stuff prior to N.A.S.A. (1958).
And who controlled everything 500 years ago, 1000 years ago etc.

Also.
If your flat Earth model is accurate. Why is there a seasonal variation in day length at the north pole.

Before the 50's nobody could get far enough away from the earth to see that it was flat. 

What about seasonal day length at the north pole.
And how come you are so certain that the Earth is flat.
What would the benefit be to N.A.S.A. in telling everyone that the Earth is spherical rather than flat.
And are Roscosmos and all other space agencies colluding with N.A.S.A.

In light of your revelations, these are all things we need answers to.

Also. Can you explain what the Sun is and how it functions in your model.
Sorry. I haven't the time to plough through 18 pages.

Let me save you the time, I'll summarize their position. Any pictures and all countries in the world are working together to keep the citizens "fooled" into thinking the world is a globe so that we won't have a problem paying tax money for space exploration. There are no planets, they are just light, and the mars trip just like the pictures of earth are all fake. Their "reason" for the sun and moon working the way they do is they are close (6,000 miles away) and too dim for us to see if they aren't directly overhead. Any problems their model has with the sun and moon disappearing below the horizon are solved by the magic of perspective and refraction which can block out light and change paths in their fantasy. Even though moving the path of the sun or moon in their model would mean that half the world stay in darkness for months, there reason for the seasons is that the sun goes further away from the north pole (and speeds it's rotation up to maintain the 24hr cycle) as well as getting closer to the south pole. (and slows it's rotation down)

None of which makes any sense, but it's all based on religion rather than science or facts. This whole post is about trying to discredit science and find holes in it's knowledge. Anything they can do to cast doubt on scientific progress we've made that contradicts the bible. if you pay attention you'll notice they don't hold the same standards on the science that doesn't contradict the bible, they have not problem going to the doctor, using cell phones, GPS, or depending on any of those technologies/advancements. But go against their sky fairy and the cognitive dissonance begins and they won't accept it and start trying to sabotage it.

PowerPikachu21

I'm amazed this debate's still going. At this point, I'd have agreed to disagree since no one will accept the other's arguments.

Erfisflat

I'd safely say that most everyone that reads this debate is leaning more flat earther, but scared to admit it.

Coveny

SilverishGoldNova said:

Coveny said:

You seem to be a photographer expert what kind of camera can take a clear picture of an object that's around 8,000 miles in diameter? If you don't think that picture is a compositions of multiple pictures, then you'll need to explain how to take that picture WITHOUT gluing multiple pictures together. Because I think you're gonna have some problems getting that picture into focus...

The fact that NASA supposedly went to the moon 6 times so easily 50 years ago and is now supposedly sending probes to Jupiter, yet despite this all we get is composites. Not to mention the fact you didnt even try to address the C/P clouds. 

Atleast you're trying to make counter-arguments unlike before when you used nothing but ad homs 

I make counter arguments until the other person wants to talk smack... then I talk smack. 

I did address the copies when I asked how you were supposed to take a clear picture of something 8,000 miles in diameter. Which you ignored, and didn't answer. 

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

"If you make a claim that “not everything exhibits an attraction to another” you need to prove that claim. I’ll wait for your prove."

This is a shifting the burden fallacy, but I'll play along. It's quite obvious that "not everything exhibits an attraction to another”. We see this in everyday observations. A man jumping from a plane at 10,000 feet does not get yo-yoed back to his plane. We can see how magnets are attracted to each other plain and simple. They get stronger with proximity, and then they snap together.

 I drop a rock from a sheer cliff and the rock is not affected by ANY of that mass, it falls vertically as anything else does. If evolution and gravity were true, both are taught as curriculum to children as dogmatic fact, we would have evolved as pancake people.

??"If there isn’t gravity it makes no difference if the objects “below” are less dense, because nothing creates movement (such as what we see in space)."??

"As for Newton’s quote… have you never been around a magnet? They operate and affect other matter without mutual contact. We learn more every day… catch up."

We know how magnets work, we can put two magnets in close proximity and see the snap together. We can detect their fields. This is demonstrable. Not so with gravity. All we can demonstrate with gravity is that (most of the time) things fall vertically til they hit something more dense that it is. This means that up is always up, and down is always down. I've already proved the flat earth, last nail in the coffin is coming soon. A submarine in water sinks by taking the mass(air) away, add the mass (air) and it rises. Same with a balloon. It's called buoyancy, in air, and water. 

"I send you two videos of the Cavendish experiment being replicated, but you say it’s never been replicated."

False.

rep·li·cate

verb

ˈrepləˌkāt/

1. 1.

   make an exact copy of; reproduce
   
   You have given me some diagrams and some dumbells.  Even if the experiment were performed millions of times, does this somehow give it statistical infallibility by numbers? That's an unusually weak argument. Any one of us, off the top of his head, could list a hundred instances where centuries of very smart people were completely wrong about a given “fact.” Most of us know that gravity is one of the biggest mysteries ever, but you're stuck to it like dogma. We see scientists in other centuries overthrowing ridiculous dogma and we cheer them, but we do not welcome the overthrow of our own dogma? You'll accept the new ideas from dead scientists at the drop of a dime, because the new is worn off. Why not welcome new ideas today? Have you gotten two attached to your new religion that you'd never even consider an alternative than what your science book says?
   
   "Up is up and down is down doesn’t contradict the ball earth model"
   
   Yes, yes it does. On a ball, there is no up or down, it's "relative".
   
   "Red herring."
   
   What is?
   
   "So because we don’t fully understand it, it must be untrue?"
   
   No. Because we are so limited on evidence for this, limited on knowledge AND the earth is flat, it can be untrue. You believe what you want, I could care less at this point.
   
   "In the flat earth model, how do the sun and moon stay in the sky rather than coming down?"
   
   There are theories. Mine is 
   
   
   
   Do your own research. Don't listen to me.
   

If you say that objects don’t attach, you are making the claim, and you have to prove it. There is no shifting of burden of proof. Just because you say something this doesn’t automatically make it true.

This is what your “proof” sounds like. “A magnet I have can’t pick up my car, therefore magnetism doesn’t exist.”

Oh, look a bunch of ad hominem and insulting memes. This is my shocked face.

We know gravity works. Gravity is demonstrable as I have shown you. 

I like how you still don’t explain WHY up is up and down is down without using gravity. I’m wrong, but you have no other answer. Makes perfect sense. You even talk about heavier density objects pushing through lower density objects. You use science and then twist it, and try to explain it with magic instead.

The videos replicated the experiment. 

Google (the third definition rather than the first) - repeat (a scientific experiment or trial) to obtain a consistent result.

Webster - duplicate, repeat replicate a statistical experiment replicated his mentor's writing style

Oxford - Repeat (a scientific experiment or trial) to obtain a consistent result.

Dictionary - to repeat, duplicate, or reproduce, especially for experimental purposes.

I’m the word correctly because I’m talking about science. 

Yes science is wrong, and it’s science that proves itself wrong… you’re your precious bible which has done nothing but gotten proven wrong BY science.

Now I get you can’t think past two dimensions. A ball have and up and down. Toward the ball is down, away from the ball is up. Let me know if this is too tough to follow. Having and up and down don’t contradict a round earth. 

Limited evidence? ROFL We have more evidence for gravity than we do for a flat earth being true. 

Ah we have finally gotten to the “believe what you want” stage now that your arguments have been countered, your lies have been called out, and your insults have been returned with more force. Don’t go away mad… just go away.

So magnet forces keep the sun and moon in the air. So cars and other small (in comparison to the flat earth sun and moon) don’t float on magnetic forces, but the sun and moon do. Is the area in-between the earth and sun/moon just void of these insanely power magnet fields? Speaking of pseudoscience…

I have done my own research, and I wish no one listened to you.

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Let me save you the time, I'll summarize their position. Any pictures and all countries in the world are working together to keep the citizens "fooled" into thinking the world is a globe so that we won't have a problem paying tax money for space exploration. There are no planets, they are just light, and the mars trip just like the pictures of earth are all fake. Their "reason" for the sun and moon working the way they do is they are close (6,000 miles away) and too dim for us to see if they aren't directly overhead. Any problems their model has with the sun and moon disappearing below the horizon are solved by the magic of perspective and refraction which can block out light and change paths in their fantasy. Even though moving the path of the sun or moon in their model would mean that half the world stay in darkness for months, there reason for the seasons is that the sun goes further away from the north pole (and speeds it's rotation up to maintain the 24hr cycle) as well as getting closer to the south pole. (and slows it's rotation down)

None of which makes any sense, but it's all based on religion rather than science or facts. This whole post is about trying to discredit science and find holes in it's knowledge. Anything they can do to cast doubt on scientific progress we've made that contradicts the bible. if you pay attention you'll notice they don't hold the same standards on the science that doesn't contradict the bible, they have not problem going to the doctor, using cell phones, GPS, or depending on any of those technologies/advancements. But go against their sky fairy and the cognitive dissonance begins and they won't accept it and start trying to sabotage it.

I find that people who say "honesty" or other words like it (truthfully, for real, etc) lie a lot, and they want you to know this time.... this time you can trust them because they are "honest". Given that I've caught you in what 3 or 4 lies now it seem to be holding true.

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

I'd safely say that most everyone that reads this debate is leaning more flat earther, but scared to admit it.

I'd safely say that given the low number of "worshipers" of the flat earth, most people who read this lean toward a globe, but don't want to deal with zealots who can argue for weeks. (I enjoy arguing, but I'm the exception not the rule)

Coveny

Just gonna drop this right here on this anti-science post...

Coveny

haha

SilverishGoldNova

Coveny said:

haha

On a random note I actually looked at it. Are you one of the globers obsessed with the flat Earth who pranced around about the eclipse today? Apparently. 

Coveny

SilverishGoldNova said:

Coveny said:

haha

On a random note I actually looked at it. Are you one of the globers obsessed with the flat Earth who pranced around about the eclipse today? Apparently. 

Traitor! (just kidding) 

Naw I've seen it before, and don't have an interest in seeing it again... I'm old. I'm about as obsessed with the flat earth as I am with religion, as soon as you people so will I.

Evidence

Coveny said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

I'm not talking about the motion around the sun, I'm talking about the milky way's alleged faster than light motion. Do you just not understand. Also, considering what you've posted, I think you'd be a wonderful science fiction writer.

Milky way is traveling 515,000 mph where the speed of light is 186,282 mps, or 11,176,920 mpm, or 670,616,629 mph. So again not even 1% of the speed of light. So again there is no argument to refute, we aren't going the speed of light, or even close to the speed of light. Come back when you have something.

Hey @Coveny How would "time dilation" be effected with this experiment on this plane?



Here is my question?

If they detected time dilation on the plane flying 500 mph (or whatever speed they averaged?) over the earth, relative to another stationary atomic clock on earth, WHAT caused the clock on the plane to slow down?

Think about this first!

* The clock on the plane is stationary, for this clock, it is the clock on the ground that is moving.

* The clock on the ground is also stationary, and for this clock, the clock on the plane is moving.

No one has been able to answer me this yet, "what is causing the time to dilate on the plane, but not the one on the ground?"

If ANYONE can answer me this, I have a hundred more questions that will prove without a doubt the Bull-poo-poo of Einstein's "special relativistic effect!"

I can also "reveal" the , the magic trickery in Einstein's Special Relativistic effects with an experiment on a 10 speed bicycle.

Coveny

Evidence said:

Hey @Coveny How would "time dilation" be effected with this experiment on this plane?

Here is my question?

If they detected time dilation on the plane flying 500 mph (or whatever speed they averaged?) over the earth, relative to another stationary atomic clock on earth, WHAT caused the clock on the plane to slow down?

Think about this first!

* The clock on the plane is stationary, for this clock, it is the clock on the ground that is moving.

* The clock on the ground is also stationary, and for this clock, the clock on the plane is moving.

No one has been able to answer me this yet, "what is causing the time to dilate on the plane, but not the one on the ground?"

If ANYONE can answer me this, I have a hundred more questions that will prove without a doubt the Bull-poo-poo of Einstein's "special relativistic effect!"

I can also "reveal" the , the magic trickery in Einstein's Special Relativistic effects with an experiment on a 10 speed bicycle.

As I have stated before our ability to measure and understand time is limited but I'll give it a shot.

Things to KNOW

*The clock on the plane is moving(planet movement, and plane movement), AND the clock on the ground is moving(planet movement).

Moving faster causes time to slow down, the faster you move the more time slows, but the effects are miniscule for the speeds we can achieve. The tough question is why? Why does going faster affect time at all? How does it do it? Why is there this connection between the two? But then this is all about proving your books answers, and not about find THE answers isn't it?

Erfisflat

Neil tyson said time stops when you reach the speed of light, so is a light year?

Erfisflat

Coveny said:

Just gonna drop this right here on this anti-science post...

The eclipses have been predicted for centuries. It's done by repitition. In a completely random cosmos, predicting eclipses would be impossible.

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

Neil tyson said time stops when you reach the speed of light, so is a light year?

Wow man you twist so much. Time slows down the closer you get to the speed of light but it doesn't stop.

From a bit of research you are taking Tyson's comment on protons out of context. His position is that because protons don't have mass they don't experience time, or as he put it time stops, and their travel is instantaneous. I'm not going to pretend I understand the physics involved, but it seems there is some debate on whether or not that's true as it may just be a matter of us not being able to observe/understand protons interaction with time yet. This is his opinion on the topic, and how it works, not scientific consensus. (scientist like to hypothesis as much as the rest of us.... maybe more so) I did not research it enough to know if his opinion is the leading opinion on the matter or not.

As for what is a light year: The distance that light travels in one earth year through a void/vacuum. So it's a measurement of distance like a mile or KM, but much larger. Each 93 million miles is an astronomical unit and there are 63,000 A.U. in a light year, or 5.88 trillion miles.

Any more questions?

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

The eclipses have been predicted for centuries. It's done by repitition. In a completely random cosmos, predicting eclipses would be impossible.

Proof positive you have no clue what science is. From your post of the Scientific method... it's done by repetition. haha 



You just make it so easy to make you look like a fool.... ROFL

Erfisflat

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Neil tyson said time stops when you reach the speed of light, so is a light year?

Wow man you twist so much. Time slows down the closer you get to the speed of light but it doesn't stop.

From a bit of research you are taking Tyson's comment on protons out of context. His position is that because protons don't have mass they don't experience time, or as he put it time stops, and their travel is instantaneous. I'm not going to pretend I understand the physics involved, but it seems there is some debate on whether or not that's true as it may just be a matter of us not being able to observe/understand protons interaction with time yet. This is his opinion on the topic, and how it works, not scientific consensus. (scientist like to hypothesis as much as the rest of us.... maybe more so) I did not research it enough to know if his opinion is the leading opinion on the matter or not.

As for what is a light year: The distance that light travels in one earth year through a void/vacuum. So it's a measurement of distance like a mile or KM, but much larger. Each 93 million miles is an astronomical unit and there are 63,000 A.U. in a light year, or 5.88 trillion miles.

Any more questions?

Erfisflat

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

The eclipses have been predicted for centuries. It's done by repitition. In a completely random cosmos, predicting eclipses would be impossible.

Proof positive you have no clue what science is. From your post of the Scientific method... it's done by repetition. haha 



You just make it so easy to make you look like a fool.... ROFL

I think it's just the opposite.

THEDENIER

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

The eclipses have been predicted for centuries. It's done by repitition. In a completely random cosmos, predicting eclipses would be impossible.

Proof positive you have no clue what science is. From your post of the Scientific method... it's done by repetition. haha 



You just make it so easy to make you look like a fool.... ROFL

I think it's just the opposite.

You  think that the scientific method begins with conclusion?????? You realize what conclusion means right? 
con·clu·sion

kənˈklo͞oZHən/

noun

1. 1.

   the end or finish of an event or process.

   "the conclusion of World War Two"

   synonyms:

   end, ending, finish, close, termination, windup, cessation; More
2. 2.

   a judgment or decision reached by reasoning.

   "each research group came to a similar conclusion"

   synonyms:

   deduction, inference, interpretation, reasoning; More

 So you can't conclude something without research beforehand, right? You also can't finish something before it begins. 
Why question after you have a conclusion? WHAT DO YOU MEAN. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, because I don't think you are actually that .

Erfisflat

THEDENIER said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

The eclipses have been predicted for centuries. It's done by repitition. In a completely random cosmos, predicting eclipses would be impossible.

Proof positive you have no clue what science is. From your post of the Scientific method... it's done by repetition. haha 



You just make it so easy to make you look like a fool.... ROFL

I think it's just the opposite.

You  think that the scientific method begins with conclusion?????? You realize what conclusion means right? 
con·clu·sion

kənˈklo͞oZHən/

noun

1. 1.

   the end or finish of an event or process.

   "the conclusion of World War Two"

   synonyms:

   end, ending, finish, close, termination, windup, cessation; More
2. 2.

   a judgment or decision reached by reasoning.

   "each research group came to a similar conclusion"

   synonyms:

   deduction, inference, interpretation, reasoning; More

 So you can't conclude something without research beforehand, right? You also can't finish something before it begins. 
Why question after you have a conclusion? WHAT DO YOU MEAN. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, because I don't think you are actually that .

No, by just the opposite, I mean (in response to) "You just make it so easy to make you look like a fool.... ROFL "

Erfisflat

@THEDENIER eclipses happen at certain times, a given amount of time from the last one like it. They predict it because they follow a pattern.

PowerPikachu21

And Erfisflat hasn't been resorting to memes every now and then?

Erfisflat

PowerPikachu21 said:

And Erfisflat hasn't been resorting to memes every now and then?

Everyone is memeing it up.

SilverishGoldNova

Coveny said:

Just gonna drop this right here on this anti-science post...

https://www.facebook.com/thelogicofscience/photos/a.1618699508361446.1073741828.1613889505509113/2027932000771526/?type=3&theater ;

Oh I see where you found this, oooooh

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

The eclipses have been predicted for centuries. It's done by repitition. In a completely random cosmos, predicting eclipses would be impossible.

Proof positive you have no clue what science is. From your post of the Scientific method... it's done by repetition. haha 

You just make it so easy to make you look like a fool.... ROFL

I think it's just the opposite.

You don't think, if you did you wouldn't believe in sky fairies. 

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

THEDENIER said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

The eclipses have been predicted for centuries. It's done by repitition. In a completely random cosmos, predicting eclipses would be impossible.

Proof positive you have no clue what science is. From your post of the Scientific method... it's done by repetition. haha 

You just make it so easy to make you look like a fool.... ROFL

I think it's just the opposite.

You  think that the scientific method begins with conclusion?????? You realize what conclusion means right? 
con·clu·sion

kənˈklo͞oZHən/

noun

1. 1.

   the end or finish of an event or process.

   "the conclusion of World War Two"

   synonyms:

   end, ending, finish, close, termination, windup, cessation; More
2. 2.

   a judgment or decision reached by reasoning.

   "each research group came to a similar conclusion"

   synonyms:

   deduction, inference, interpretation, reasoning; More

 So you can't conclude something without research beforehand, right? You also can't finish something before it begins. 
Why question after you have a conclusion? WHAT DO YOU MEAN. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, because I don't think you are actually that .

No, by just the opposite, I mean (in response to) "You just make it so easy to make you look like a fool.... ROFL "

Sure looks like I made you look like a fool right there. ROFL

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

PowerPikachu21 said:

And Erfisflat hasn't been resorting to memes every now and then?

Everyone is memeing it up.

I don't like it, but I have to agree with Erfisflat... someone call Guinness!

Erfisflat

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

The eclipses have been predicted for centuries. It's done by repitition. In a completely random cosmos, predicting eclipses would be impossible.

Proof positive you have no clue what science is. From your post of the Scientific method... it's done by repetition. haha 

You just make it so easy to make you look like a fool.... ROFL

I think it's just the opposite.

You don't think, if you did you wouldn't believe in sky fairies. 

Who said I believe in sky fairies?

Erfisflat

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

THEDENIER said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

The eclipses have been predicted for centuries. It's done by repitition. In a completely random cosmos, predicting eclipses would be impossible.

Proof positive you have no clue what science is. From your post of the Scientific method... it's done by repetition. haha 

You just make it so easy to make you look like a fool.... ROFL

I think it's just the opposite.

You  think that the scientific method begins with conclusion?????? You realize what conclusion means right? 
con·clu·sion

kənˈklo͞oZHən/

noun

1. 1.

   the end or finish of an event or process.

   "the conclusion of World War Two"

   synonyms:

   end, ending, finish, close, termination, windup, cessation; More
2. 2.

   a judgment or decision reached by reasoning.

   "each research group came to a similar conclusion"

   synonyms:

   deduction, inference, interpretation, reasoning; More

 So you can't conclude something without research beforehand, right? You also can't finish something before it begins. 
Why question after you have a conclusion? WHAT DO YOU MEAN. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, because I don't think you are actually that .

No, by just the opposite, I mean (in response to) "You just make it so easy to make you look like a fool.... ROFL "

Sure looks like I made you look like a fool right there. ROFL

I'm just going to let you keep thinking that. Good luck with that ego. 

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

You don't think, if you did you wouldn't believe in sky fairies. 

Who said I believe in sky fairies?

Flat earth is based off religion not science, but I'm pretty sure you said you did, and if I recall correctly you believe in the uncreated creator above other gods inspired by the bible but not organized religion crap.

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

THEDENIER said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

The eclipses have been predicted for centuries. It's done by repitition. In a completely random cosmos, predicting eclipses would be impossible.

Proof positive you have no clue what science is. From your post of the Scientific method... it's done by repetition. haha 

You just make it so easy to make you look like a fool.... ROFL

I think it's just the opposite.

You  think that the scientific method begins with conclusion?????? You realize what conclusion means right?
So you can't conclude something without research beforehand, right? You also can't finish something before it begins. 
Why question after you have a conclusion? WHAT DO YOU MEAN. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, because I don't think you are actually that .

No, by just the opposite, I mean (in response to) "You just make it so easy to make you look like a fool.... ROFL "

Sure looks like I made you look like a fool right there. ROFL

I'm just going to let you keep thinking that. Good luck with that ego. 

Well I am on the side of facts and truth rather than faith and .

Erfisflat

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

You don't think, if you did you wouldn't believe in sky fairies. 

Who said I believe in sky fairies?

Flat earth is based off religion not science, but I'm pretty sure you said you did, and if I recall correctly you believe in the uncreated creator above other gods inspired by the bible but not organized religion crap.

My arguments are not religion based. I use practical science with every point. While a flat earth means that creationism is more likely than big bangism, there are probably more origin theories than "sky fairies" I don't know the first creationist who believes in fairies. 

Erfisflat

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

THEDENIER said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

The eclipses have been predicted for centuries. It's done by repitition. In a completely random cosmos, predicting eclipses would be impossible.

Proof positive you have no clue what science is. From your post of the Scientific method... it's done by repetition. haha 

You just make it so easy to make you look like a fool.... ROFL

I think it's just the opposite.

You  think that the scientific method begins with conclusion?????? You realize what conclusion means right?
So you can't conclude something without research beforehand, right? You also can't finish something before it begins. 
Why question after you have a conclusion? WHAT DO YOU MEAN. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, because I don't think you are actually that .

No, by just the opposite, I mean (in response to) "You just make it so easy to make you look like a fool.... ROFL "

Sure looks like I made you look like a fool right there. ROFL

I'm just going to let you keep thinking that. Good luck with that ego. 

Well I am on the side of facts and truth rather than faith and .

Whatever helps you sleep at night @coveny

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

You don't think, if you did you wouldn't believe in sky fairies. 

Who said I believe in sky fairies?

Flat earth is based off religion not science, but I'm pretty sure you said you did, and if I recall correctly you believe in the uncreated creator above other gods inspired by the bible but not organized religion crap.

My arguments are not religion based. I use practical science with every point. While a flat earth means that creationism is more likely than big bangism, there are probably more origin theories than "sky fairies" I don't know the first creationist who believes in fairies. 

Speaking of strawmen I never said your arguments were religion based. You don't use science. pfft

If you believe in creationism then you believe sky fairies created everything... but sky fairies which because they are so complex, powerful, and knowing they didn't need to be intelligently designed. ROFL 

Erfisflat

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

You don't think, if you did you wouldn't believe in sky fairies. 

Who said I believe in sky fairies?

Flat earth is based off religion not science, but I'm pretty sure you said you did, and if I recall correctly you believe in the uncreated creator above other gods inspired by the bible but not organized religion crap.

My arguments are not religion based. I use practical science with every point. While a flat earth means that creationism is more likely than big bangism, there are probably more origin theories than "sky fairies" I don't know the first creationist who believes in fairies. 

Speaking of strawmen I never said your arguments were religion based. You don't use science. pfft

If you believe in creationism then you believe sky fairies created everything... but sky fairies which because they are so complex, powerful, and knowing they didn't need to be intelligently designed. ROFL 

@Coveny said: "Flat earth is based off religion not science,"

Then he said: "I never said your arguments were religion based. You don't use science. pfft "

This is why I am, for the most part, ignoring you. I do use real science and logic to prove the plane, while you deny, lie and wriggle around with strawmen and an assortment of fallacies and nonsense.

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

You don't think, if you did you wouldn't believe in sky fairies. 

Who said I believe in sky fairies?

Flat earth is based off religion not science, but I'm pretty sure you said you did, and if I recall correctly you believe in the uncreated creator above other gods inspired by the bible but not organized religion crap.

My arguments are not religion based. I use practical science with every point. While a flat earth means that creationism is more likely than big bangism, there are probably more origin theories than "sky fairies" I don't know the first creationist who believes in fairies. 

Speaking of strawmen I never said your arguments were religion based. You don't use science. pfft

If you believe in creationism then you believe sky fairies created everything... but sky fairies which because they are so complex, powerful, and knowing they didn't need to be intelligently designed. ROFL 

@Coveny said: "Flat earth is based off religion not science,"

Then he said: "I never said your arguments were religion based. You don't use science. pfft "

This is why I am, for the most part, ignoring you. I do use real science and logic to prove the plane, while you deny, lie and wriggle around with strawmen and an assortment of fallacies and nonsense.

Religion gives you the flat earth answer, you try to corrupt science in your arguments to get the flat earth answer you want because of your religious beliefs. So your arguments aren't religious based but you get the answer of flat earth from your religion. I will give that it's a bit convoluted, but the progress was you believed the earth is flat because of religion and now argue with pseudoscience to prove it. 

Erfisflat

Coveny said:

 89Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

You don't think, if you did you wouldn't believe in sky fairies. 

Who said I believe in sky fairies?

Flat earth is based off religion not science, but I'm pretty sure you said you did, and if I recall correctly you believe in the uncreated creator above other gods inspired by the bible but not organized religion crap.

My arguments are not religion based. I use practical science with every point. While a flat earth means that creationism is more likely than big bangism, there are probably more origin theories than "sky fairies" I don't know the first creationist who believes in fairies. 

Speaking of strawmen I never said your arguments were religion based. You don't use science. pfft

If you believe in creationism then you believe sky fairies created everything... but sky fairies which because they are so complex, powerful, and knowing they didn't need to be intelligently designed. ROFL 

@Coveny said: "Flat earth is based off religion not science,"

Then he said: "I never said your arguments were religion based. You don't use science. pfft "

This is why I am, for the most part, ignoring you. I do use real science and logic to prove the plane, while you deny, lie and wriggle around with strawmen and an assortment of fallacies and nonsense.

Religion gives you the flat earth answer, you try to corrupt science in your arguments to get the flat earth answer you want because of your religious beliefs. So your arguments aren't religious based but you get the answer of flat earth from your religion. I will give that it's a bit convoluted, but the progress was you believed the earth is flat because of religion and now argue with pseudoscience to prove it. 

Actually that's not how it happened,  don't pretend like you know me. I turned away from religion and God years ago and adapted the belief system you abide by, which is based on pseudoscience. I watched every star wars, star trek, cosmos, etc. that came out, and, like you (and most everyone else), felt enlightened by the preachers of big bangism. It was not until AFTER I looked into the arguments and evidence for flat earth that I realized that there was literally zero scientific evidence for big bangism, and creationism is the opposite position in the dichotomy.  When i started testing the globe for myself, I realized the difference between science and pseudoscience. So consider yourself warned. 

Evidence

Coveny said:

Evidence said:

Hey @Coveny How would "time dilation" be effected with this experiment on this plane?

Here is my question?

If they detected time dilation on the plane flying 500 mph (or whatever speed they averaged?) over the earth, relative to another stationary atomic clock on earth, WHAT caused the clock on the plane to slow down?

Think about this first!

* The clock on the plane is stationary, for this clock, it is the clock on the ground that is moving.

* The clock on the ground is also stationary, and for this clock, the clock on the plane is moving.

No one has been able to answer me this yet, "what is causing the time to dilate on the plane, but not the one on the ground?"

If ANYONE can answer me this, I have a hundred more questions that will prove without a doubt the Bull-poo-poo of Einstein's "special relativistic effect!"

I can also "reveal" the , the magic trickery in Einstein's Special Relativistic effects with an experiment on a 10 speed bicycle.

As I have stated before our ability to measure and understand time is limited but I'll give it a shot.

Things to KNOW

*The clock on the plane is moving(planet movement, and plane movement), AND the clock on the ground is moving(planet movement).

Moving faster causes time to slow down, the faster you move the more time slows, but the effects are miniscule for the speeds we can achieve. The tough question is why? Why does going faster affect time at all? How does it do it? Why is there this connection between the two? But then this is all about proving your books answers, and not about find THE answers isn't it?

Faster? Faster relative to what?

I'm sure you agree that:

A. * The clock on the plane is stationary, for this clock, it is the clock on the ground that is moving.

B. * The clock on the ground is also stationary, and for this clock, the clock on the plane is moving.

The "faster" the plane moves, the faster the 'ground-clock' is moving away from the clock on the plane, and visa versa!

Speed is nothing but two objects "distancing" from each other, and it is all "relative", ..as in "relativity", so 'what' if I may ask is causing the time dilation on one clock, and NOT on the other?

"Why" is a tough question? You mean all them Sci-Fientist at NASA and CERN have never been able to figure it out yet?

Google - In 1905, Albert Einstein determined that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers, and that the speed of light in a vacuum was independent of the motion of all observers. This was the theory of special relativity.

Say what? "the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers"  ?  Pease see A and B above, .. because according to the definition of relativity, all observers are stationary, or non-accelerating. For the guy sitting in a speeding train looking out, the guy sitting front of the Station is moving, and visa versa for the guy sitting front of the station, the guy sitting in the train is zooming by.

112 years after the Jew Einstein was forced to come up with an idea to defend the German BB-Evolutions no-Creator God Religion, and with NASA's 10 $Billion dollars a month income alone, employing the best scientists in the world, .. and neither CERN nor NASA has a team of scientists trying to figure it out? And you going to believe these people that they landed a Rover on a star called Mars??

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

Actually that's not how it happened,  don't pretend like you know me. I turned away from religion and God years ago and adapted the belief system you abide by, which is based on pseudoscience. I watched every star wars, star trek, cosmos, etc. that came out, and, like you (and most everyone else), felt enlightened by the preachers of big bangism. It was not until AFTER I looked into the arguments and evidence for flat earth that I realized that there was literally zero scientific evidence for big bangism, and creationism is the opposite position in the dichotomy.  When i started testing the globe for myself, I realized the difference between science and pseudoscience. So consider yourself warned. 

You rebelled against your parents or whatever but you never stopped believing, but during your rebellion you grew to like science so you have tried to corrupt the parts that don't fit your world.

Warned? Warned about what? Are you threatening me or something?

Erfisflat

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Actually that's not how it happened,  don't pretend like you know me. I turned away from religion and God years ago and adapted the belief system you abide by, which is based on pseudoscience. I watched every star wars, star trek, cosmos, etc. that came out, and, like you (and most everyone else), felt enlightened by the preachers of big bangism. It was not until AFTER I looked into the arguments and evidence for flat earth that I realized that there was literally zero scientific evidence for big bangism, and creationism is the opposite position in the dichotomy.  When i started testing the globe for myself, I realized the difference between science and pseudoscience. So consider yourself warned. 

You rebelled against your parents or whatever but you never stopped believing, but during your rebellion you grew to like science so you have tried to corrupt the parts that don't fit your world.

Warned? Warned about what? Are you threatening me or something?

Again, you pretend to know me...

Coveny

Evidence said:

Coveny said:

Evidence said:

Hey @Coveny How would "time dilation" be effected with this experiment on this plane?

Here is my question?

If they detected time dilation on the plane flying 500 mph (or whatever speed they averaged?) over the earth, relative to another stationary atomic clock on earth, WHAT caused the clock on the plane to slow down?

Think about this first!

* The clock on the plane is stationary, for this clock, it is the clock on the ground that is moving.

* The clock on the ground is also stationary, and for this clock, the clock on the plane is moving.

No one has been able to answer me this yet, "what is causing the time to dilate on the plane, but not the one on the ground?"

If ANYONE can answer me this, I have a hundred more questions that will prove without a doubt the Bull-poo-poo of Einstein's "special relativistic effect!"

I can also "reveal" the , the magic trickery in Einstein's Special Relativistic effects with an experiment on a 10 speed bicycle.

As I have stated before our ability to measure and understand time is limited but I'll give it a shot.

Things to KNOW

*The clock on the plane is moving(planet movement, and plane movement), AND the clock on the ground is moving(planet movement).

Moving faster causes time to slow down, the faster you move the more time slows, but the effects are miniscule for the speeds we can achieve. The tough question is why? Why does going faster affect time at all? How does it do it? Why is there this connection between the two? But then this is all about proving your books answers, and not about find THE answers isn't it?

Faster? Faster relative to what?

I'm sure you agree that:

A. * The clock on the plane is stationary, for this clock, it is the clock on the ground that is moving.

B. * The clock on the ground is also stationary, and for this clock, the clock on the plane is moving.

The "faster" the plane moves, the faster the 'ground-clock' is moving away from the clock on the plane, and visa versa!

Speed is nothing but two objects "distancing" from each other, and it is all "relative", ..as in "relativity", so 'what' if I may ask is causing the time dilation on one clock, and NOT on the other?

"Why" is a tough question? You mean all them Sci-Fientist at NASA and CERN have never been able to figure it out yet?

Google - In 1905, Albert Einstein determined that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers, and that the speed of light in a vacuum was independent of the motion of all observers. This was the theory of special relativity.

Say what? "the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers"  ?  Pease see A and B above, .. because according to the definition of relativity, all observers are stationary, or non-accelerating. For the guy sitting in a speeding train looking out, the guy sitting front of the Station is moving, and visa versa for the guy sitting front of the station, the guy sitting in the train is zooming by.

112 years after the Jew Einstein was forced to come up with an idea to defend the German BB-Evolutions no-Creator God Religion, and with NASA's 10 $Billion dollars a month income alone, employing the best scientists in the world, .. and neither CERN nor NASA has a team of scientists trying to figure it out? And you going to believe these people that they landed a Rover on a star called Mars??

Hopefully you understand that speed is a scale. The term faster means moving up that scale. Speed and time are linked in someway we don't currently understand.

You may be sure but I don't agree as previously stated. Neither clock is stationary when we talk at a universal level. But I will give you at a "relative level" if you are on the plane A is correct, and if you are on the ground B is correct.

The clocks don't need to move further apart or increase the distance for this effect to occur, that statement is erroneous.  

Speed is not just two objects "distancing" from each other. Think of a drag car on a round race track if you need help visualizing this. Speed can be relative but that's a bit misleading. If I'm sitting in a train doing 300 mph, relative I'm stationery, but if the speed abruptly stops then I would feel the speed I hadn't felt before. Faster speed on one clock causes the time dilation.

Yes why is the tough question. That is correct they have not figured it out.

And now we are back to the faster part. Time dilation is a law/theory of physics (theory doesn't mean the same thing to scientists as what's used in common speech) so A and B both work just from different observers. No all observers are not stationary... where do you get this crap? This is getting beyond my knowledge levels but if you observer something while accelerating it seems to affect the laws of physics in some way, this would create no change on A and B. Viewing movement doesn't mean the laws of physics have been affected. 

Einstein was forced? Where is your proof of this? 

People have expanded and corrected Einsteins work in many ways, science has figured it out. Yes I'm going to believe they landed a rover on a PLANET called mars. I have much more proof for that than you do of your sky fairies.  

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Actually that's not how it happened,  don't pretend like you know me. I turned away from religion and God years ago and adapted the belief system you abide by, which is based on pseudoscience. I watched every star wars, star trek, cosmos, etc. that came out, and, like you (and most everyone else), felt enlightened by the preachers of big bangism. It was not until AFTER I looked into the arguments and evidence for flat earth that I realized that there was literally zero scientific evidence for big bangism, and creationism is the opposite position in the dichotomy.  When i started testing the globe for myself, I realized the difference between science and pseudoscience. So consider yourself warned. 

You rebelled against your parents or whatever but you never stopped believing, but during your rebellion you grew to like science so you have tried to corrupt the parts that don't fit your world.

Warned? Warned about what? Are you threatening me or something?

Again, you pretend to know me...

I've met so many people like you I feel like I do.

Erfisflat

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”            -Albert Einstein

“If Michelson-Morley (experiment that failed) is wrong, then Relativity is wrong.”                   -Albert Einstein

“I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment.”           -Albert Einstein

“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.”                             -Albert Michelson

“Go out on a starry night and walk alone for half an hour, resolutely assuming that the pre-Copernican astronomy (the earth is not moving, the sun & moon go around the earth) is true. Look up at the sky with that assumption in your mind. The real difference between living in that universe and living in ours will then, I predict, begin to dawn on you.”                                                            -C.S. Lewis

“The fool on the hill sees the sun going down and the eyes in his head see the world spinning around.”    -John Lennon and Paul McCartney

“We are unreconstructed geocentrists hiding behind a Copernican veneer.”                  -Carl Sagan

“General Relativity has passed every solar-system test with flying colors. Yet so have alternative theories.”                           -Clifford Will

“Thus, general relativity brings about its own downfall by predicting singularities.”       -Stephen Hawking

“I think that we shall have to get accustomed to the idea that we must not look upon science as a ‘body of knowledge,’ but rather as a system of hypotheses, or as a system of guesses or anticipations that in principle cannot be justified, but with which we work as long as they stand up to tests, and of which we are never justified in saying that we know they are ‘true’ or ‘more or less certain’ or even ‘probable.’    -Karl Popper

Erfisflat

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Actually that's not how it happened,  don't pretend like you know me. I turned away from religion and God years ago and adapted the belief system you abide by, which is based on pseudoscience. I watched every star wars, star trek, cosmos, etc. that came out, and, like you (and most everyone else), felt enlightened by the preachers of big bangism. It was not until AFTER I looked into the arguments and evidence for flat earth that I realized that there was literally zero scientific evidence for big bangism, and creationism is the opposite position in the dichotomy.  When i started testing the globe for myself, I realized the difference between science and pseudoscience. So consider yourself warned. 

You rebelled against your parents or whatever but you never stopped believing, but during your rebellion you grew to like science so you have tried to corrupt the parts that don't fit your world.

Warned? Warned about what? Are you threatening me or something?

Again, you pretend to know me...

I've met so many people like you I feel like I do.

If I really was looking for attention I'd have given my information out long ago. I might have even... wait for it... posted a picture of my big smiling head on the internet by now.