Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)

[Dale Eastman]

Keeping this conversation alive. By your silence are you agreeing that there's no experimental evidence to support the notion of a pressure system next to vacuum or extreme low pressure absent a physical barrier? And if your aren't going to concede and are instead contending that gravity (something unproven) is able to overpower a vacuum, would you provide the evidence that can demonstrate gravity defeating vacuum in an experiment? Im not going to move past this point until you concede or are able to rebutte.

➽ By your silence are you agreeing <SNIP!>

With friends and family who say I've just been wasting my time by interacting with you.

➽ would you provide the evidence that can demonstrate gravity defeating vacuum in an experiment?

You have been WILLFULLY ignoring the evidence that I have placed in front of you.

https://www.virgingalactic.com/sign-up

Sign up and book a flight to take your delusional ass to the edge of space.

file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/Flat%20Earth/RJJ/Screenshot%202022-11-29%20at%2010-19-13%20U22_WEBSITE_EDIT_FINAL_MK_2022-02-08_1.mp4.png

https://videos.ctfassets.net/vsp83h9pnr7f/6iJRCQM2wxGRjCdk8Ay8EP/d90967a345551f5d308783c4cd954510/U22_WEBSITE_EDIT_FINAL_MK_2022-02-08_1.mp4
file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/Flat%20Earth/RJJ/Screenshot%202022-11-29%20at%2010-18-17%20U22_WEBSITE_EDIT_FINAL_MK_2022-02-08_1.mp4.png

file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/Flat%20Earth/RJJ/Screenshot%202022-11-29%20at%2010-19-46%20U22_WEBSITE_EDIT_FINAL_MK_2022-02-08_1.mp4.png

[Dale Eastman]

You mean a recording studio? See this is how science works if there's a claim you need evidence to support it. If there were actual evidence, there wouldn't be any globe deniers. Saying gravity can hold water and air to the earth needs something to back it. When i can easily demonstrate the minute amount of low pressure from my mouth and lungs and easly defeat gravity and pull water and air away from the earth, but you can't show me one experiment where this magical gravity can defy the low pressure of space. If you can't validate this notion of gravity must have to understand you have pseudoscience and a dogmatic religious belief.

still nothing has gone on the "globe only" basket.

Sign up and book a flight to take your delusional ass to the edge of space.

➽ You mean a recording studio?

I am reading that comment as if you openly stated Virgin Galactic doesn't launch folks into and above the upper atmosphere.

Present verifiable evidence of this claim. Absolute proof is the only way to make your claim not libelous.

[Dale Eastman]

You don't understand that the positive claim is that virgin sent a rocket to space. Can you prove that it actually went up with people in it and that it actually landed back safe. Did you have an uncut/ unedit feed or was it cut edited and could be totally staged. If that's real i guess starwars was all real too. Again you can choose to believe they did that but to know(gnosis) means to know first hand. You have a great appeal to authority complex for someone who deems himself an anarchist/voluntryist. You have way more faith in the religion of government and propaganda than I. Again i used to beleive all the rocket launches and cgi, but that's only evidence of how easy it is to fool people who want their programming to be true.

I'm just waiting for you to substantiate the claim that gravity can defy a vacuum. Im not going farther till this can be observed, verified, and repeated, you know, like the scientific method demands.

now, I've seen an experiment where a guy takes a barometer in that tall building in Dubai and shows that there's a difference in pressure from the bottom floor and the top floor, but that's a begging the question fallacy and a reification fallacy, and doesn't refute the notion that air pressure requires a container. As I've shown that pressure gradients exist in containers. That experiment presupposes that the earth system isn't contained. Is there an experiment of a pressure gradient with no container that isn't fallacious?

➽ idon't think anyone has been past 72 miles high

📖 Because you found something difficult to understand,
or are unaware of how it works,
you made out like it's probably not true.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity📖

You are willfully ignoring the data I have placed in front of you...
Just like the Holy Roman Catlick Church refused to look through Galileo's Telescope.

Eppur si muove.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/284517977025750/posts/471843484959864/?comment_id=510919904385555&reply_comment_id=520046980139514

https://www.facebook.com/groups/284517977025750/posts/519284680215744/?comment_id=519950840149128&reply_comment_id=520048103472735

[Dale Eastman]

you are refusing to answer and provide evidence to a simple question, and using fallacious arguments. Like that appeal to authority you just used. Galileo a man you don't even know whether he existef or not. So can you provide the evidence for the claim that gravity can defy the force of a vacuum, or do you concede that there is no evidence that gravity can hold atmos in defiance of a vacuum?

I've provided evidence for every claim I've made thus far, I'm asking you extend me the same courtesy.

➽ I've provided evidence for every claim I've made thus far, <SNIP>
➽ You mean a recording studio?
⇉ I am reading that comment as if you openly stated Virgin Galactic doesn't launch folks into and above the upper atmosphere.
Present 𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓯𝓲𝓪𝓫𝓵𝓮 𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓮 of this claim.

[Dale Eastman]

You have no way to prove that tho. There was no uncut uninterrupted feed of the whole this from stay to finish. For all you know it's a fucking movie. But the cgi was trash and all the breif scenes of waitlessness can be filmed in a zero-g plane. It was a cheap movie production at best. And cannot constitute evidence. Now can you answer my question or are you going to defer to another of point argument.

Eppur si muove.

Deflation. Can you provide proof of claim that gravity can defy vacuum? Or do you concede?

Eppur si muove.

Deflation. Qui tacet consentire videtur.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

I've posted evidence for every claim, you are failing to proving evidence for your claim. Now do you have evidence of gravity defying vacuum, or is it pseudoscience?

Scroll Bar ⇉
Free To Use

You haven't shown evidence that gravity can defy vacuum. You showed a picture that fades from black to white. Now that might be sufficient for you but that's not scientific in any way is there an experiment that can demonstrate what you're claiming?

Scroll Bar ⇉
Free To Use

If i missed it then please resubmit it.

Scroll Bar ⇉
Free To Use

i scrolled, the only thing i see is the picture of black fading to white called a gradient. But that isn't evidence that there's no container, nor that the supposed force called gravity can defy a vacuum. That is why i keep asking for evidence to support your claims. I explained that I've seen an "experiment" of a gradient within the tallest building in Dubai, however that experiment is a reification fallacy because it doesnt refute the notion that air pressure requires a container to begin with. So specifically i am still looking for experimental evidence that air pressure does not require a container, and your claim is that gravity is the reason air pressure does not require a container then i am looking for an experiment whereby gravity is shown to defy the force of a vacuum. Your seemingly inability to provide these proofs of claim is partly why there are so many people denying the globe model.

Laugh emogis are considered ad hom.

Are you conceding, or is there evidence for your claim?

I have no duty to address your delusions...
So:

Scroll Bar ⇉
Free To Use

Move along.
You are dismissed.

I thought this would be a good faith conversation. You clearly have been presented a contradiction in your logic, in witch you either have to acknowledge that you have no evidence to support your claim, and that a stupid half-wit flerfer has you stumped. By your silence, and refusal to answer you are agreeing that there actually is no scientific evidence to support the claim that gravity is somehow able to defy the 2nd law of physics, and your hardened ego will not allow you to admit that. Do this is one more thing that cannot go into the "globe only" basket. What's your next peice of evidence that supports your notion that you live on a spinny water rock in an infinite void?

It was good faith until you willfully ignored evidence and used personal incredulity as your reason for doing so.

What evidence? The picture that's just a fade from black to white? Im serious, what evidence are you referring to that satisfies my question about air pressure?

You have willfully ignored the purpose and intent of that fade image.
That image is an analog showing a white color gradient.

Right. Because that's not experimental evidence. That's a picture that looks like it was done in ms paint. It's there any experiment that can qualify what that gradient is attempting to demonstrate?

✩ ✪ ✫ ✬ ✭ ✮ ✯ ✰ ✱ ✲ ✳ ✴ ✵ ✶ ✷ ✸ ✹ ✺ ✻ ✼ ✽

[Dale Eastman]

Dear Dale,
you are dealing with a brainless fucking idiot. Either push him off a tall building to prove gravity is real (put him in a rubber suit first) or stop engaging with this moron.
Love, your family and friends

No one denies the EFFECT of gravity. Whats disputed is the CAUSE of gravity. I posted how a manipulating the independent veriable of the electrostatic charge of something using a vidergraph generator will cause an object to either rise or fall. Ulinke dale, here, i actually show experimental evidence to support my claims. Unless you can show me how space/time is bent, your beleive in pseudoscience.

30 1859 No one denies the EFFECT of gravity. Whats disputed is the CAUSE of gravity.

you post pseudo science crap that proves nothing! Most of your nonsense ONLY works under very specific conditions and CAN NOT be repeated. Maybe you should study the differences between scientific LAW and scientific THEORY

Neither you nor Dale have posted anything that's observable, verifiable, and repeatable, which the scientific method requires. I understand the difference between scientific law and scientific theory, what causes the effect we see and call gravity is a theory, hence theoretical physics. If you spent more time studying the experimental evidence instead of regurgitating what's in the Rockefeller school books you could provide the evidence needed to substantiate the claims being proposed instead of just ad homing, and reifying you deeply held but erroneous beliefs because it's too hard to accept that maybe you've been duped. So no ad homs, do you have evidence that Dale can't provide or are you just triggered?

Pot, kettle, black. None of your alleged evidence is observable, repeatable, verifiable.

Again so far nothing dale has provided goes in the "globe only" basket. Maybe you're better at providing evidence than dale so I'll ask you, then. Do you have or can you provide an experiment that shows air pressure next to vacuum without equalization or a physical barrier? Or if you contend that gravity nullifies this LAW of thermodynamics, can you provide an experiment whereby gravity can defy the force of a vacuum?

get this through your thick stupid skull. Pressure gradients!!! Apparently you do NOT understand Gradients. Hint: figure out what GRADUAL means

again, in order to have air pressure a container is required. Do you have evidence of air pressure absent a container? Providing this could shut me up for good.

gas/air pressure requires a container.

Again- ignoring the key word GRADIENT as in GRADUAL; figure that out first. I will NOT waste my time on more of your BS until YOU can prove you understand what GRADUAL means

again I've already shown that pressure gradients exist within a container. Can you show air/gas pressure period without a container? You listen worse than dale.

pressure gradient existing within a container. Do you have evidence of pressure gradients absent a container, with out begging the question, and reification?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PXnaVvgaYY8

You still do not understand what gradual means. Let’s try this is the air pressure in Chicago. The same as it is I need Evans Colorado?

Your begging the question. Your presuming that you're not in a contained system. That's why I'm asking a prerequisite question of whether it's possible to have air pressure without a container in the first place.

30 2225 Your presuming that you're not in a contained system.

YOU prove your bullshit first. Without throwing more bullshit videos that do NoT answer a single question. Also go back and read you own words. You contradict yourself in nearly every post

i just did, air and gas pressure requires a container. I just showed 4 screen shots and a video as proof of my claim. Now stop shifting the burden of proof and show me where you can have air pressure without a container.

All garbage and does not prove anything. Now you get your head out of your rectum and prove you understand what gradients and gradual mean

at sea level relative air pressure is 14.7 the higher the altitude the lower the air pressure gets. That's the gradient. Density and buoyancy can account for this as the denser air is settled at the bottom. Now can you show me air pressure without a container? Can you show cacuum without a container? Can you show high pressure next to low pressure without equalization or a physical barrier? I've been asking Dale this for a month now and he can't seem to answer without a logical fallacy of being the question fallacy or a reification fallacy, or an ad hom. Is there an experiment you can site that demonstrates either of those things.

Now I understand what Robert Heinlein meant when he said, never try to teach a pig to sing.

gradient isn't an answer to the question. Gradients exist within containers. I'm asking for evidence of a air pressure with our without a gradient without containment. Do you have evidence or just now ad homs?

Sing, Piggy, come on sing!

ad homs, cool. I didn't think I'd get an intelligent answer from you.

Kitty Eastman you do realize you're projecting right now. You're the pig that can't learn to sing.

every flat earther used to beleive in the globe they were indoctrinated to believe. Then upon closer examination we actually humbled ourselves and admitting we were wrong.

you’re own words right back at you

so you have no evidence for what you're claiming either? Why did you even chime in?

are you saying believing in your nonsense is a 12 step program?

More ad homs. Why don't you go fuck yourself.

Fecalbook deleted this. I'm putting it back.
It is my intent to present you as you present yourself.

file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/Flat%20Earth/RJJ/MonkeyBrain.png

[Dale Eastman]

Private Message 1 1748 I got a restriction for fishing out what i received. Let's keep it even and fair. I can ad hom with the worst of them,  but I'm trying to have this discussion in good faith, but there's a limit when it comes to personal attacks.

Private Message 1 2044 Dishing*

Quoting my wife:
➽ Dear Dale,
you are dealing with a brainless fucking idiot.

Dear Kitty,
Yes. I know.

As you are aware, monkeys can be trapped very easily. All that is needed is a chained container with a hole just big enough for the monkey to reach in and grab the bait. Once the monkey grabs the bait, making a fist, the monkey can not withdraw their hand. The monkey is not smart enough to let go of that which it is so fixated on, so it gets captured.

I have seen many a mind get captured thusly because that mind refuses to give up a belief.

In the instance of this monkey minded flat earth believer, The reason this discussion has been going on since September 30, 2022 is because of my curiosity and attempt to understand the peanut his mind has grabbed and refuses to let go of. As you had focused, so do I... Pressure/density gradients.

On November 6 @ 0734 hrs, Monkey-brain posted:
➽ i don't beleive there's such a thing as "the vaccume of space"

Quite obvious to me, monkey-brain can not conceptualize "infinity".

If I was actually in a mood to continue interacting with his monkeyness, (which I am not because I've wasted entirely too much time interacting with him), I would ask him to discuss the concepts of looking straight up at night. Since any volume of space, that is, any three dimensional area, with nothing in it is by definition, a vacuum. His monkeyness implies his belief that he can see no further straight up than where air ceases to be... Because he doesn't believe in the nothingness beyond that edge of air.

Just as obvious to me, with his constant whining about pressure requires a container, that he believes there must be an atmospheric container at the edge of the air.

12 1207
➽ But because we know air pressure requires a container, it is simple to think whatever the container is and its shape could cause the light rays we see to make the angles we measure. Since you haven't shown how you can have air pressure next to a vaccume without it equalizing or without a physical barrier this just adds credence to the notion of a structure, either physical or energetic, above us.

Oh SNAP!
What's on the other side of that containing structure?

6 0734
➽ We have air pressure here in earth. Do you have an experiment that demonstrates high pressure next to low or no pressure without equalization or a physical barrier?

Monkey brain can't even recognize when he contradicts his own words.

The above words have been in the can since Thursday December 1rst.

These words were composed Tuesday December 6th.

After watching several episodes of "Mighty Ships" on the Smithsonian channel, the thought occurs to me that his monkeyness has no fucking clue about navigation.


By his religiously addled brain, every navigator of aircraft and ships MUST be in on the "globe earth conspiracy". Every one of those navigators MUST be making a public show of using globe earth navigation tools and procedures, while hiding flat earth tools and procedures.

[Dale Eastman]

I like how you like that people are talking shit while I'm banned for simply repeating the ad hom that was given to me, especially since you haven't substantiated. I'll be back in two days so you can elaborate on the claims of how you have air/ gas pressure without a container or how gravity is able to hold air/ gas in a density gradient. I expect an experiment to substantiate the claim,  you've had 30 days.

Quote from: 29 1549 direct message:

➽ I like how you like that people are talking shit while I'm banned for simply repeating the ad hom that was given to me, especially since you haven't substantiated. I'll be back in two days so you can elaborate on the claims of how you have air/ gas pressure without a container or how gravity is able to hold air/ gas in a density gradient. I expect an experiment to substantiate the claim,  you've had 30 days.

With mixed emotions of both contempt and sadness, I decline to interact with your mindless parroting presentations. I have decided to NOT delete your comments on FE in this FE / GE discussion thread. I have also decided to not delete any of your non-FE comments anywhere else.

I have more important things to present. This cold civil war that is going on in the U.S. and the world could become a hot war with people being killed... That is, with people being killed in addition to the people being killed by governments around the world daily.

When you correctly explain the phases of the moon, I'll think about resuming discussion.

cc: tim lance

Dale Eastman yeah all your ad homs don't constitute evidence of anything except a failure to make an intelligent argument. So now that I'm out of banishment for simply dishing out what i had received, do any of you have evidence of gas/air pressure absent a container, or if your claim is gravity holds the gas/air pressure to the earth i would like an experiment demonstrating such behavior. I've already shown an experiment demonstrating a gas/air pressure gradient within a container i will repost it if necessary.

When you correctly explain the phases of the moon, I'll think about resuming discussion.

no. YOU invoked the pressure gradient and i would like evidence that supports the claim. Or you can concede that you have no evidence that refutes the fact that gas/air pressure requires a container, and this a gas/air pressure gradient requires a container. If you can concede you we can get to the logical deduction of why a lens of some sort could be envoked in explaining how the sun apears in an apparent location and why the experiment of the flat table with a light source observed through a lens is plausible and viable.

You have been given MY terms for continuing this discussion.

Else:

Scroll Bar ⇉
Free To Use

so you concede, then. Ok. We shall go over the moon phases. The sun circles the above the earth once every 24 hours and between the two tropics yearly, the moon moves between the tropics monthly, but circles the earth at a slower pace than the sun, whereby, the sun laps the moon once every 28 days. We used to have 13 months(moonths) of 28 days. So when the moon is closest to the sun we have a "new moon". No one sees the new moon, not even with ir cameras (interesting). When the moon is farthest from the sun (on opposite sides of the earth) we get our full moon. The moon is its own light sorce, but it's phases are dependent on its position relative to the sun. Why do i say the moon is its own light sorce? Because of the inverse square law of light. On a full moon night, where the moon casts a shadow on the ground, and we are very modest, say we could call that one lumin, it's like more but if we call it just one lumin, and we have the distance to the moon its 4 lumins(as the inverse square law of light dictates) half that distance again and were at 8 lumin, and you do this all the way till your 100 miles from the moon, in the globe model, the brightness it would have to be is multitudes brighter than we see the sun from here on earth. Now speaking of moon phases, have you heard of the "impossible eclipse" or the seleninlion eclipse?

➽ so you concede, then. Ok. We shall go over the moon phases. The sun circles the above the earth once every 24 hours and between the two tropics yearly, the moon moves between the tropics monthly, but circles the earth at a slower pace than the sun, whereby, the sun laps the moon once every 28 days. We used to have 13 months(moonths) of 28 days. So when the moon is closest to the sun we have a "new moon". No one sees the new moon, not even with ir cameras (interesting). When the moon is farthest from the sun (on opposite sides of the earth) we get our full moon. The moon is its own light sorce, but it's phases are dependent on its position relative to the sun. Why do i say the moon is its own light sorce? Because of the inverse square law of light. On a full moon night, where the moon casts a shadow on the ground, and we are very modest, say we could call that one lumin, it's like more but if we call it just one lumin, and we have the distance to the moon its 4 lumins(as the inverse square law of light dictates) half that distance again and were at 8 lumin, and you do this all the way till your 100 miles from the moon, in the globe model, the brightness it would have to be is multitudes brighter than we see the sun from here on earth. Now speaking of moon phases, have you heard of the "impossible eclipse" or the seleninlion eclipse?

◎ All of the above
◎ Some of the above
◉ None of the above

https://youtu.be/4q1f0fQizyc

https://youtu.be/x0Cr_VUtY08

https://youtu.be/9US3oaEZ8dI

https://youtu.be/3vL3JCssBl4

I have no duty to address your delusions...
So:

Scroll Bar ⇉
Free To Use

Move along.
You are dismissed.
file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/0001/No%20Delusion%20Duty.png

you clearly cannot refute what I've put forward regarding gas/air pressure and claiming gravity creates a gradient with no evidence to support this claim, and by your silence and refusal to answer it is acceptance by acquiescence, another one for the flat-basket. I've moved on to the moon phases and eclipses with several videos as my proofs of claim. A ball casting a shadow on a ball creates an elliptical shadow contrary to what's observed. The shadow of a lunar eclipse will come in from the opposite side of the direction of how the earth is said to move in relation to the moon, in the globe model (i observed this myself with the last lunar eclipse. The seleninlion eclipse can't work on the ball as both moon and sun are both above the horizon. A shadow cannot be smaller than the object casting the shadow, the solar eclipse is refuted, unless you have evidence to the contrary. Can you provide or produce evidence of an object casting a shadow smaller than the object itself?

https://youtu.be/dJbU4tSpsAY

I have no duty to address your delusions...
So:

Scroll Bar ⇉
Free To Use

Move along.
You are dismissed.

you're right but if you're claiming you can prove your claim you would show evidence, otherwise its an acceptance by acquiescence. So I've moved on to moon phases like you requested.

Repeating what I wrote:
When you correctly explain the phases of the moon, I'll think about resuming discussion.

You have NOT correctly explained the phases of the moon.
You have posted crap vids that do NOT explain the phases of the moon...
Your vids are NOT YOU explaining.
You are not even smart enough to understand that this discussion is over.
Keep shitting last words in the conversation, I will block you. I'm tired of the work required to archive your delusional posts.

[Dale Eastman]

get fucked. You haven't substantiate one claim of the globe. And nothing so far has been placed into the globe only basket. I'm out. Maybe flat earth just isn't for you. Have fun on your imaginary spinny space rock in your endless vacuum. Maybe one day you'll have the eyes to see.

Have a nice life.