Jump to content

Flat Earth?


gerrydandridge

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On 10/4/2018 at 8:30 AM, paul's got wright said:

Oh eminem, you really are a poor researcher!  I like Eminem he has made some good music and is undoubtedly one of the greatest rappers of our time.  I bet he does not think the Earth is flat.

What exactly have i gotten wrong? Pretty much everything about the shape and nature of our world...

What alleged race are you on about? Do you think the study of the natural world is a race!  You know very well what I mean.  You claim to be interested in science and investigating the natural world, you openly admit you have not expressed an opinion or theory on the shape of the Earth.  Your interest in this thread is because it perpetuates you view that there is an ongoing discussion about the shape of the world when in reality there isn't.  There is a small but vocal minority who, are typically highly religious, and who do not understand the research and evidence that has been gathered over centuries explaining the shape of the Earth, our position in the solar system as well as gravity, buoyancy, refraction, and atmospheric pressure.  I even came across one who believes that dinosaurs are fake and were made up to support the heliocentric model.  I have not yet worked out how dinosaurs have any relevance to that but you may know. 

Deary me, you have got yourself in a tangle this fine morning hey?

I'ts called objective reality, and the defintion of science has been posted here many times. Did you miss it?  No, I did not miss it, we could not come to an agreement on the definition of science.  Chinahand and I both tried to get your agreement on the definition of science but there was no satisfactory conclusion. 

So does gerry believe in the spinning globe now? Don't remember him mentioning that he did. The spinning globe is under scientific scrutiny, as you well know.  For your benefit I have quoted and highlighted the relevant section in gerry's post where he states that the FE models cannot predict the location of the sun at a given time, date and location.

I have posted the definition of science on numerous occasions, so clearly demonstrating my understanding of it's meaning. I even posted the scientific method, which china agreed with.  So take your silly claim back and try reading the thread before making anymore false accusations.  You have a limited understanding of scientific methodology and, I am sure China will agree, you deliberately distort that definition to suit your own ends.   

Or can you provide an example, where I "dispute the very nature of science" please? Mentioned above in relation to your previous exchanges with China and myself.

Ta x

 

 

On 9/30/2018 at 2:26 PM, gerrydandridge said:

To add, I am fully with you in a sense that we have been lied to by NASA and world governments, I cant come to a conclusion as to if we are spinning or static and perhaps the objects in the sky are the only things moving....I think space exists and that we are visited by space travellers all the time, however I don't think we can ever leave this construct with our biological bodies, the moon landings and images of earth and other planets are  likely fraudulent. It is hard to discern fully as with all things I find truth is purposely hidden in a pot of lies, so some aspects of both flat and globe earth are likely correct, but they have been purposely mixed to obfuscate and this is designed to divide us once again.

Would you agree that if a FE model cannot predict the elevation of the sun correctly, on a given day at a given time in various locations on the FE map then it has to be wrong,because we can observe this physically by going to these places at the correct times, the globe predicts this.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, paul's got wright said:
2 hours ago, Uhtred said:
2 hours ago, paul's got wright said:

What exactly is gravity neil?

Something you so patently lack.

Do you possess it in abundance Uhtred? 

Einsteinian or newtonian?

The difference is insignificant in this context.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, paul's got wright said:

Must you butt in or can uhtred form a response china?

It's a free country Paul.  I can comment just as freely as you can.

We could get all daoist - we don't understand the Dao of Gravity at all.  But that doesn't mean we can't use what understanding we do have to do something of use.

All models are wrong, some are useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

It's a free country Paul.  I can comment just as freely as you can.

We could get all daoist - we don't understand the Dao of Gravity at all.  But that doesn't mean we can't use what understanding we do have to do something of use.

All models are wrong, some are useful.

I suspect uhtred doesn't know the difference anyway, and yes it does matter when people are making assertions, which "gravity" they are refering to.

You don't know what gravity is china, neither does neil, yet faithfully you follow in its omnipotent omnipresent, almost magical "properties ", without ever having discovered it, or experimented with it. You believe what you are told, in keeping with your religious beliefs x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a very silly argument Paul. Sometimes you just have to accept that someone has done the work for you. I think i know roughly how cheese is made, I don't need to make it myself to enjoy it. I mean, if we're talking magical properties then cheese has to be in the conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...