d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > Monolths
Prev1136137138139140174Next
Closed New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 63,097
Joined: Jan 11 2005
Gold: 9,765.00
Warn: 60%
May 3 2017 02:44pm
Quote (DCSS @ May 3 2017 10:38am)
ive been arguing the shit card sultan believes in in some shitty gay furry discord im in and people are losing their shit this is also a good mental exercise for me trying to stay on solid ground against the tsunami of facts and shit, turns out saying they're indoctrinated is a pretty effective last resort here.

They even made me my own channel to rant and rave in


your more than welcome to post proof of anything, but if all you have is assumptive conjecture, the shitposting buttrage forum is in some other thread.

The indoctrination claim does not come from me but from phd at Mit and noted author Noam Chomsky:




This post was edited by card_sultan on May 3 2017 02:50pm
Member
Posts: 92,954
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
May 3 2017 03:09pm
Quote (card_sultan @ May 3 2017 02:36pm)
So you're saying you arrived at the exact same determination as Nasa without a source, so you think your a rocket scientist now. Cool show me some empirical evidence that gravity exists between 3 objects without using the typical planet/moon/sun assumptions, Should be easy for you right - since your so brilliant. Ok waiting for that.


Another dodge I see.
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Dec 18 2015
Gold: Locked
May 3 2017 04:13pm
Quote (Vereor @ Jul 23 2015 09:52pm)
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/zigzub3pivq9rcrpnshl.jpg


POTA
Member
Posts: 63,097
Joined: Jan 11 2005
Gold: 9,765.00
Warn: 60%
May 3 2017 04:25pm
Quote (thesnipa @ May 3 2017 11:09am)
Another dodge I see.


Oh so you can't show me any empirical evidence of how gravity would affect the relationship of three objects, so why do you blindly believe Gravity without any evidence -wow that's really sad.

Is it because you want your friends to like you so you can all use circle jerk troll logic about how assumptions are cool? Awesome, sounds great, wish i could join but i have to go get some teeth pulled. -_-

This post was edited by card_sultan on May 3 2017 04:26pm
Member
Posts: 52,224
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,902.00
May 3 2017 05:56pm
Quote (tard_sultan @ May 2 2017 03:34pm)
Shorter mountain are not possible then taller mountain? Wow only a dumbass would say something so dumb, also he is exactly at the height where he says he is - his altimeter proves it.


No, what I'm saying is that shorter mountains in the foreground appearing taller than taller mountains in the distance viewed from a higher mountain isn't possible on a flat Earth. But I shouldn't expect you to strive for anything resembling intellectual honesty. You have to lie and misrepresent us just to keep yourself going. His altimeter model has a margin of error of 200-300 feet according to a group which debunked his video and checked the reviews on Amazon. The piece de resistance though? The author of the video himself, in the comments section stating:

Quote (Jon McIntyre)
I am neither in allegiance with "flat earth believers" nor opposed to "globe earth believers". I am simply a neutral arbiter. If you do not believe this then please hear me when I say that my observation and video PROVE NOTHING. That is the end of all potential argument and debate with me. The work I did is riddled with potential for inaccuracies but at least I got off my duff and went out and did the work instead of fighting endlessly in front of my computer, which leads absolutely NOWHERE.

I will say this though. Regardless of how much potential error I factor in for my observation I believe I still do not generate enough curvature to match the the curvature that should be there. In my opinion it does appear as though there is "missing curvature". But arguing about this will not answer any questions conclusively. Obviously I could be wrong in small details that would change the observation and I readily admit this. However the only method I will accept by which to be corrected is a new more accurate, more comprehensive, and more conclusive test which we can debate the design of all day long. That's a debate I'm willing to have because it's constructive. If you don't like my test help me design a new one.


In that last bold, he essentially admits there is detectable curvature, just not enough that he personally can account for all of it.

<headshot>

Quote (tard_sultan)
"The miniscule motions of the earths rotation" - a mass of 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg rotating at 1000 mph while flying 66,000 mph around the sun is "miniscule" and he showed his gyroscope was able to detect the procession of a much lesser force - your BS is totally worthless and destroyed.


The mass and speed of the Earth have absolutely NO bearing on the discussion. None. Continually bringing it up shows off how little you know. The mass and speed of the gyroscope are what matter. Both are insufficient to overcome the friction it experiences to be able to detect the Earth's rotation. But there are better gyroscopes out there, and you continuously ignore them so you can cling to the non-results of an inferior piece of equipment. This is just you being a fucking liar, knowingly using a defective source in the face of superior sources.

Quote (tard_sultan)
Rainbows dont disprove a globe - what they do suggest is that their is a dome and that we live in a closed environment (which Nasa going to moon suggests that we dont) because no one can make a rainbow indoors with just a light and a few drops of liquid water, and you can easily do it outside.


Suggest??? No one is interested in suggestion. Just because your weak mind is susceptible to suggestion doesn't mean the rest of us are. I need hard information. Knowing that white light refraction through water vapor observed at 42 degrees off from opposite the light source produces rainbows is all I need to know. Seen from the air, you can even spot perfectly circular rainbows. Explain a perfectly circular rainbow with a dome.

Quote (tard_sultan)
So are claiming that a can of hairspray is working improperly if it does not combust - or that their is no combustion in a rocket so comparing it to a can of compressed air is valid?


A can of hair spray??? Like, what? Does a can of hair spray pump thousands of gallons of liquid fuel and LOX per minute? No. No it doesn't. Stop being obtuse.

Quote (tard_sultan)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof but since you mythbusters video was debunked, its rather sad you have nothing


Debunked where?
Member
Posts: 63,097
Joined: Jan 11 2005
Gold: 9,765.00
Warn: 60%
May 3 2017 07:05pm
I dont wanna make a wall of text like you so ill just do points - are you smart enough to match up the replys to your tardation?

- high mountain should hide short mountains on flat earth, are you high - it's called changing your line of sight aka - moving your head - you should try it.
- some debunkers on Amazon said that - wow must be true. <------irony.
- as to the Jon Mcintire reply - its obvious that he doesn't want to get attacked by assholes like yourself so he's just placating them in a feeble attempt to remain neutral
- no he doesn't say there is detectable curvature - hes just saying the curvature that should be there is not, but reading comprehension was never your strong suit

- The mass and speed of a gyroscope matters in detecting procession, but gravity affecting the 6 quintillion ton mass of the earth spinning at 1000 mph doesnt even when he demonstrated the gyro detecting a much lesser force? wow that's a pretty retarded assumption - do you have any proof of that - oh wait silly me - ballers feel they dont need to prove anything since it would violate their assumptive nature....

- you need hard information - hmm yeah i bet.... so what empirical evidence do you have that the earth is a sphere, do you know what Empirical even means? Better do a google search a try to make some up ok?
- I'm not the one comparing cans of hairspray to a Nasa rocket - I'm just making a comment about his bad comparison
- Mythbusters video was debunked earlier in this thread when this guy wanted to show Mythbusters video was correct but he accidently debunked it because he showed combustion does not happen in a vacuum, ill post that video again.



This post was edited by card_sultan on May 3 2017 07:18pm
Member
Posts: 92,954
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
May 3 2017 07:21pm
Lol. Even when they admit there is curvature u deny it. This is getting sad.
Member
Posts: 63,097
Joined: Jan 11 2005
Gold: 9,765.00
Warn: 60%
May 3 2017 07:50pm
Quote (thesnipa @ May 3 2017 03:21pm)
Lol. Even when they admit there is curvature u deny it. This is getting sad.


No he doesn't say that - he says that even if you factor in the default amount the altimeter could be off by (which it isnt) the curvature that should be there is not.
Perhaps you can quote the part where he says "there is curvature" , oh thats right you can't - because he doesn't say that - maybe your troll mind is dyslexic :cry:
Member
Posts: 66,666
Joined: May 17 2005
Gold: 17,384.69
May 4 2017 05:07am
I hope op is realizing how BAD it is to operate a conspiracy flat earth topic in the d2jsp sciences section.

We could have using all that good energy to share interesting stuff & link about much awesome subjects like "how do magnets works" or "how long is my low orbit cannon" etc...

BUT NOPE

Between me & you OP, Honestly: all that is SAD and, as a scientist, i pray the baby Jesus will punish you hard (and deep) for this blasphemy.

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on May 4 2017 05:22am
Member
Posts: 63,097
Joined: Jan 11 2005
Gold: 9,765.00
Warn: 60%
May 4 2017 09:38am
Quote (Saucisson6000 @ May 4 2017 01:07am)
I hope op is realizing how BAD it is to operate a conspiracy flat earth topic in the d2jsp sciences section.

We could have using all that good energy to share interesting stuff & link about much awesome subjects like "how do magnets works" or "how long is my low orbit cannon" etc...

BUT NOPE

Between me & you OP, Honestly: all that is SAD and, as a scientist, i pray the baby Jesus will punish you hard (and deep) for this blasphemy.


What's really sad is not one blatantly lying dishonest mofo can give absolutely any empirical evidence of Ball Earth, all while Nasa is being exposed for their fake psy-ence.

I'm pretty sure if there is a God he will punish the liars and Helios worshippers.

Here Nasa is caught in yet another cgi lie where an astro-not still makes the hand motion so you think the hat is floating, but there was a glitch in the cgi tech and the "floating hat" wasn't actually passed to him. Way to drop the ball, so to speak, lol.

How many times will they need to be exposed for people to wake up and stop with their blind faith, incessant trolling, and just being nothing more than a typical waste of skin? Very sad.



edit: - I love that battered wife syndrome analogy, brutal truth hurts.



This post was edited by card_sultan on May 4 2017 09:46am
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
Prev1136137138139140174Next
Closed New Topic New Poll