Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)

[Dale Eastman]

Ok, first you're missing my first question. The angular size would be too small for you to see it with the naked eye given its hight and size. Second can you prove that it is that hight and size? This can you prove that it's not a 747 with a projectors. Do you have a photo that's not from nasa or blatant cgi? My brother caught it in his telescope i have not. But I've only ever seen that picture you showed or a cgi, do you have an independent photo of it from your telescope?

➽ My brother caught it in his telescope i have not.

Does your brother know you are publicly calling him a liar because he claimed he saw ISS and you didn't?

[Dale Eastman]

no i want there he said it looks just like the video i shared. So you have something that's not from nasa or cgi i can see?

𝙀𝙥𝙥𝙪𝙧 𝙨𝙞 𝙢𝙪𝙤𝙫𝙚

https://www.businessinsider.com/telescope-video-spacex-crew-dragon-docked-space-station-2020-7

[Dale Eastman]

Lol space x is nasa any independent photos yhat don't have a vested interest in faking space?

And you think that video is real? Lolol plz send more.

x

➽ What is the casual mechanism for the universe... ok so nothing exploded and created everything, then this force called gravity(which needs 95% dark matter/ dark energy that's never been detected by has to be there otherwise gravity doesn't work) causes gas to fall in on itself and create burning balls of gas in a vaccume(cool story) then Lightning strikes creates an amoeba that turns into a fish that climbs on land turns into a monkey then two monkeys have a retarded baby called a human. None of these things have any scientific basis. It's a cool story you believe with no evidence.

📖 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.📖

None of these things have any scientific basis. It's a cool story you believe with no evidence.

file:///C:/Pictures/Atheism/BuyBull/314-Circular-Reasoning-bible-truth-evidence.jpg

[Dale Eastman]

Who said i subscribe to the biblical creation story?

I get that the Christians would love to prove their book right. But I'm of a scientific nature. Some of the things in the bible are metaphorically correct. I don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

➽ Who said i subscribe to the biblical creation story?
➽ Do you pressume that stars are physical? The sun is physical?

📖14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,📖

[Dale Eastman]

Both creation stories are SPECULATION. That's why i go with things that are observable verifiable and repeatable.

Who's the religious zeolite, here?

September 4, 2020 - Zeolites are minerals that contain mainly aluminum and silicon compounds. They are used as drying agents, in detergents, and in water and air purifiers.

Which baskets have more evidence in them at this point. The "works on both"basket, the "only flat" basket or the empty "only works on a globe" basket?

➽ That's why i go with things that are observable verifiable and repeatable.

𝙀𝙥𝙥𝙪𝙧 𝙨𝙞 𝙢𝙪𝙤𝙫𝙚

[Dale Eastman]

Use of the ssn is prima facia evidence that you are a voluntary participant in the congressional democracy and are presumed to be a voluntary surety for their national debt.

my opinion is backed by evidence. Your opinion is the opinion nasa gave you. If i wanted your opinion, i would have just gone to the nasa web site.

No fucking clue as to what you just replied to.

this is a quote from hubble, and demonstrate why nasa is a religion in its own right.
Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance. A thinning out would be readily explained in either of two ways. The first is space absorption. If the nebulae were seen through a tenuous haze, they would fade away faster than could be accounted for by distance and red-shifts alone, and the distribution, even if it were uniform, would appear to thin out. The second explanation is a super-system of nebulae, isolated in a larger world, with our own nebula somewhere near the centre. In this case the real distribution would thin out after all the proper corrections had been applied. Both explanations seem plausible, but neither is permitted by the observations. The apparent departures from uniformity in the World Picture are fully compensated by the minimum possible corrections for redshifts on any interpretation. No margin is left for a thinning out. The true distribution must either be uniform or increase outward, leaving the observer in a unique position. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs....Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable … Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape."Edwin Hubble

"ScIEncE". I want you to stop being played. You see through 9/11, and cv19, i think you can see through the space lie, too.

Hey dipshit. Scroll up and look at the original post you replied to.

[Dale Eastman]

Still fucking clueless as to where he's posting, dipshit posted:

show me where i put my opinion without something to qualify it. Then i said if i wanted your opinion i would just go to the nasa website because your belief in the heliocentric model was given to you from someone else with no evidence. This was supposed to be a scientific discussion all you've done is a faulty equation that's based on presumptions you can't prove and have no experimental evidence to support.

Nothing has gone into the "only works on a globe" basket. So stop ad homing and make a better argument as to why you're convinced you're on a spinny ball in a space vaccume. Do you have any geometric evidence to support your beleive. The extraordinary claim of the earth requires extraordinary evidence.

Hey dipshit. Scroll up and look at the original post you replied to.

[Dale Eastman]

Back to the original post:

The go fast rocket i mentioned earlier shot in Arizona. And the moon that was over New Zealand at the time(timeanddate.com)(should be on the other side of the ball earth) but is visible because it's just fast away over the flat earth.

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2F6SixmHPCAYI%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3mxfQpkQAGH7fEK_ojkcTlI4sOou1SbGoEjzIZUKy2vDqVYnDWJC0mD30&h=AT0KKK9BhCbsrHppeCs_pAeVDsK8hF-cnyqQo964KlcIlIh7IfFSA4nkn7T81GTjUNhBmzrnVORC9jtCGt6WIGialw_XvnmnnoBaCxfgOcxSGh0KiRaAWirXLDw-cg1DdCnI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SixmHPCAYI

Thank you for that link to that excellent vid showing the curved horizon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SixmHPCAYI

[Dale Eastman]

You mean the fraunhofer defraction at the horizon?

And back to the thread I told him to scroll up:

i thought we were on our topic for a second. However if you want my proof of claim in this case, I'll direct you to Google ashwaner rule 6.

its not my opinion, it's the rules they have to operate by.

➽ i thought we were on our topic for a second.

You gave my wife your flat earth shit because you don't read so good. It's not like you didn't have a tag of who wrote the comment or post.

➽ 1. Air plane windows have a concave to them.

Do you want me to supply evidence for this too or do you want to try your very first goole search?

A link to the manufacturer of the windows, to the tech drawings showing the dimensions of the windows, along with a list of the airframes those windows are installed in.

[Dale Eastman]

Here just one on not here to spoon feed you stuff. But i again i don't make a claim i don't have something to back it with.

You best propf is a picture from an airplane window when neil degrasse tyson said that the red bull guy couldn't see curvature from 120,000 ft. Lol when we've refuted "r" at sea Level. Any other evidence you want to put forward for the globe? I'm about done here.

➽ when neil degrasse tyson said

Objection. Hearsay.

I will point out that I requested a link to the tech drawings showing the dimensions of the windows on the manufacturer's website. You alleged that you have drafting knowledge so you know exactly what I have requested. You have failed to provide suitable proof.

What you are alleging is proof, is only suitable for a prima facie look-see.

From your linked article:
⚡The outer panes are thicker at approximately 0.4” thick and carry the pressure loads for the life of the window,⚡

So these windows are of a uniform thickness, just like the windows on my car. And the side windows on my car are also curved just like the image from your article shows. And the compound curves of my car's windshield... Oh my gosh, however can I drive with all the distortion of that front glass lens?

Ditto the question, how can pilots fly with all that distortion looking out the cockpit windows?

October 19 13:44 I stated:
you are also totally fucking clueless as to how lenses work.

October 19 14:07 you replied:
➽ it bends toward the denser medium.

Which was correct. Though I doubt you know why.

In the next sentence you claimed:
➽ And is magnified.

Which reaffirmed for me that you have no fucking clue about lenses.

November 3 14:39 you posted:
➽ 3. That's newton's 2nd law(my mistake) air needs a container to have pressure. So we do assume there to be something above us based on m newton's 2nd law regarding air pressure. That experiment helps to explain that there is some kind of physical barrier causing our pressurized system while simultaneously giving us the the angles of light we see.

You have implied there is a dome covering a flat earth.

It's okay to assume for a flat earth, but it's not okay to make assumptions for a globe earth? I'm surprised that you admitted to the double standard.

From your linked article:
⚡As your flying tube gains altitude, the pressure acting on the outside the plane drops — the air is much less dense the higher your plane climbs. Because aircraft cabins are pressurized to about 6,000 feet for passenger comfort (and survival), there is more pressure inside the plane than acting on it from the outside. ⚡

November 3 09:53 you posted:
➽ In a helium tank, there is a pressure gradient, but it still needs a container.

So, you are claiming that a tank with helium at pressure will have two different pressure readings at a top and a bottom pressure reading port?

With these specific words of yours, you have told me you don't know anything about the causality of pressure gradients.

November 3 09:56 you claimed:
➽ Air pressure requires a container.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

November 3 16:11 you posted:
➽ AIR pressure is the pressure is the weight air molecules press on its container.

With these specific words of yours, you have told me you don't know the difference between weight and gas pressure.

November 3 1647 you posted:
➽ Fewer molecules pressing on 1 cm³.

Which indicates to me, you have grasped one small piece of the puzzle that is befuddling you.

You seem to be unaware of the fact that "density" is a part of this puzzle.
As in, what packs more molecules in to a given volume?

I will assume that you understand that an air compressor physically pushes gaseous molecules into a SMALLER volume.
The SMALLER volume is the confined space of the compressor's tank and the vehicle's tires.

You continually reject the OTHER supply of force that physically pushes gaseous molecules into a SMALLER volume.
You are strongly implying the weight of gaseous molecules only works with a tank to push gaseous molecules into a SMALLER volume.

November 4 10:50 you claimed:
➽ the theory of gravity that's never been proven.

The theory of gravity is proven every single time you don't float off the earth.
The acceleration of an object in free fall has been measured and is so consistent that it's math is proven correct.

Your electrostatic claim instead of gravity BS is just that... Bullshit.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Electrostatic forces and gravametric forces have been measured.

November 2 13:52 you claimed:
➽ We have to start to understand that water on a sphere has to bend to the force of "gravity" yet all our testing shows water at rest lays flat.

These specific words tell my you have no fucking clue about scale.

Basket balls are NOT round. This picture proves it.
BasketFlats.jpg

Superman is real. I have proof.

[Dale Eastman]

Commercial flights don't even reach this hight. You're going to have to pose some serious evidence something that can go into the"globe only" basket. Do you have one thing that only works on a globe.

Where's your "r"

The default is you can see over the flat plane but air conditions can bring visibility down to a shorter distance but that's not evidence of a globe. https://m.youtube.com/.../UgkxorrD7dD8MPtWEoCtlbt45...

you've shown no evidence thus far.

Pilots use a gyroscope which retains rigidity in space. Meaning you won't see a gyro on a plane coming from one location and the gryo flip over because you've gone around a curved surface. The gyro remains flat and level because you fly flat and level in an airplane over the earth plane. The gyro provides the artificial horizon. And it remains flat no matter how far "around the globe"you fly.

You say i don't know how certain things work but that's just an ad hom because ive refuted all your main points. My question is how have you not acknowledged that there's since things that you told me to your surprise that I'm right about. Could it be im right and your ego is holding on to your deep rooted belief system and it causes discomfort for you to rationally ang logically examine the things you believe could just be a fairy tale?

Here's the fucking scale its your ball math that doesn't fucking match reality.

x

So we tested that claim with long distant photography, lasers and mirror flashed revealing that the horizon is an optical phenomenon, not physical curvature. I don't know how else to explain. If r then x, IF NOT X, THEN NOT R. HERE IS NOT R. So you can either conform to the scientific method or you can double down and go into what's called pseudoscience. But you can't say that you have scientific proof, when you haven't provided one peice of solid evidence.

You haven't answered many questions, which is all I'm here to really do is ask questions about the globe. How you reconcile "r". Evidence of high pressure next to vaccume with no physical barrier? Evidence that refraction can cause a lifted image from beyond a physical horizon stopping the viewed object at the horizon line? How naval ships and submarines can laser pin point a target or sonar a target 100 miles away using line of sight apparatuses? How the long distance record photo sees things that should be obscured by miles of physical curvature? You haven't answered shit. You don't know what a gravitron is because it's theoretical physics aka imaginary. What we have done is experiment on somethings positive/ negative charge and we can cause an object to "defy gravity" just by changing its charge potential. You don't have any experimental evidence to refute any of these real, observable, verifiable, and repeatable scientific experiments.

Do you think cv is real? They gave you a cgi of the cervsa bug so it must be real. You think 19 hijackers took down 3 buildings using 2 planes? We saw them come down on the tv so it must be real. Now just apply the logic out. And so when these subjects are now taught in school they are tought as fact, just like gravity was taugh to us. Even hubble said they can't prove it either way, but the notion that we are at the center of creation or a unique position is not something we want people to know.

https://youtu.be/EofTl4_OKhc

https://youtu.be/5SEf1JjADnw

https://youtu.be/G1BCY_r1w4I

https://youtu.be/HFGq4UUbhYY

➽ Here's the fucking scale its your ball math that doesn't fucking match reality.

Take the marbles out of your mouth so I can understand what you are ATTEMPTING to say with this fuzzy, blurry, unreadable picture that you are implying somehow denies Trigonometric calculations.

Using your own words, articulate EXACTLY how you think this image refutes math.

[Dale Eastman]

I said autocad disproves your trigonometry. That is a picture of how your globe breaks down which makes the picture of chicago impossible on this globe. You agreed. Then, an even more demonstrable evidence was this, called the black swan, because we know the camera was only 1 for of the ground and it shows where the horizon would have to be, according to globe math, yet we have the riggs in clear view at known distances and the horizon is still at eye level because the horizon is an optical phenomena and is due to perspective, not the curvature of a ball. So the default is, we can see things across our flat plane until air conditions bring the visibility down due to moisture, pollution, temperature, etc. This is geometric evidence of a flat plane. And it's why i make the positive claim that,the natural physics of water, bodies of water at rest find and maintain level.

Thank you for taking the marbles out of your mouth.
Too bad you didn't bother to understand WHY I agreed with you in regard to seeing Chicago buildings at a distance. To bad you didn't understand that I learned something about celestial navigation because of the discussion with you.

No shooting objects below 20° for celestial navigation.

Which brings me back to my accusation that you do not understand lenses.

Nor do you understand density gradients.

And per your ignoring of the BasketFlats.jpg image, nor did you, nor do you, understand scale as I have used the word.

[Dale Eastman]

Wtf do i not understand about on a ball that's 25,000 miles in circumference, if you're one foot off the ground the horizon must be no more than 1.2 miles from the observer? And when i tell you on a flat plane the horizon is an optical phenomena due to the convergence point of perspective. So if conditions are fair we can see farther than would be possible on a ball. I showed a video that demonstrates what refraction does when observing far distances. If your on that basket ball, once something has gone beyond that physical horizon, you could not then zoom a camera in and see what's gone beyond that physical geographic curve. There is no measurable curve. So you have to be rejecting the scientific method in favor of a belief that the earth is a sphere. Brcause in science when an experiment disproves a hypothesis you throw out that hypothesis and form a new hypothesis to test. We have tested for curvature over great distances using high power optics, lasers, mirror flashes. We got Loran, and Marconi's transatlantic radio communications. Radio waves require line of sight. Things at this distance should be beyond a curve but are not. If r then x, if not x, then not r.

I posted the 44 government documents that tell you are their networks and programs are based on a "flat-nonrotating earth". There is a new world record long distance sniper shot. They said the round took 28 seconds to hit its target. When he was asked what the compensation was for coriolis was, he said, "oh we didn't even account for that".

7,774 yards or 4.4 miles

Your Gish Galloping ends or this discussion ends. Your choice.

[Dale Eastman]

Flat Earth United | Facebook
This post is hidden because Flat Earth United is a private group.
Join Flat Earth United to see posts from this group.

In a private message:
➽ Flat Earth United | Facebook
This post is hidden because Flat Earth United is a private group.
Join Flat Earth United to see posts from this group.

Never going to happen.

➽ And when i tell you on a flat plane the horizon is an optical phenomena due to the convergence point of perspective.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

➽ There is no measurable curve.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

➽ Radio waves require line of sight.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

So you've never heard of DX'ing.

Did I mention I know a thing or three about radio electronics?

32.05 mhz, Southern Arizona, Maryland medivac frequency. We had to change comm freq in AZ.
630 khz, NYC, southern arizona

[Dale Eastman]

That's a weird way of saying you were a tool for the government.

and it's not just an opinion when you can't refuted the claim.

I told you I'm archiving this discussion as it happens. Makes it very easy to go back and search out phrases posted. Something Fecalbook is not capable of doing.

Too bad you didn't bother to understand WHY I agreed with you in regard to seeing Chicago buildings at a distance. To bad you didn't understand that I learned something about celestial navigation because of the discussion with you.

No shooting objects below 20° for celestial navigation.

Which brings me back to my accusation that you do not understand lenses.

Nor do you understand density gradients.

Back to you.

Too bad you didn't bother to understand WHY I agreed with you in regard to seeing Chicago buildings at a distance.