"Flat-Earthers seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don't want to believe" - Lee McIntyre, Boston University.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..D3 said..- why do rockets launch in a curve? Why don't they find the ideal location on earth to launch straight up to their destination?
Because if they went straight up, they'd fall straight down once the thrusters shut down. To maintain an orbit, they need to travelling over 17,000 mph around the earth, it's more efficient to get started on this on the way up.
No. They'd hit the dome if they didn't flatten out their trajectory. Nobody knows what would happen if the dome lost its integrity and only a fool would take the risk of finding out
I cannot believe the stuff you're saying. I thought you were too smart to fall for some dishonest conspiracy theory. I bet you even believe in the "wind turbines" that are actually there just to hold up the dome if it accidentally deflates.
The UN knows what happens when the dome loses its integrity; the aliens can get in. That's why the service doors where the dome comes down to ground level at "Antarctica" are well guarded airlocks only just big enough for the dome polishing machines to get out.
The only other way out is by "mines", which are holes in the ground that link up to the spaceports on the underside of the Earth. The reason "miners" are well paid is so they keep the secret; "FIFO" means they fly in and out from the underside of the Earth to send out the human slaves and bring back metal and oil from our reptilian overlords.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
"Flat-Earthers seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don't want to believe" - Lee McIntyre, Boston University.
Yep. Simple dishonesty like that is at the heart of all conspiracy theories.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..Mr Milk said..D3 said..- why do rockets launch in a curve? Why don't they find the ideal location on earth to launch straight up to their destination?
Because if they went straight up, they'd fall straight down once the thrusters shut down. To maintain an orbit, they need to travelling over 17,000 mph around the earth, it's more efficient to get started on this on the way up.
No. They'd hit the dome if they didn't flatten out their trajectory. Nobody knows what would happen if the dome lost its integrity and only a fool would take the risk of finding out
I cannot believe the stuff you're saying. I thought you were too smart to fall for some dishonest conspiracy theory. I bet you even believe in the "wind turbines" that are actually there just to hold up the dome if it accidentally deflates.
The UN knows what happens when the dome loses its integrity; the aliens can get in. That's why the service doors where the dome comes down to ground level at "Antarctica" are well guarded airlocks only just big enough for the dome polishing machines to get out.
The only other way out is by "mines", which are holes in the ground that link up to the spaceports on the underside of the Earth. The reason "miners" are well paid is so they keep the secret; "FIFO" means they fly in and out from the underside of the Earth to send out the human slaves and bring back metal and oil from our reptilian overlords.
Now you are getting it!
There is a bit too much detail there though. Remember; suggest something, but not actually enough where anyone can nail you down on any particular issue. Memes are better because too many words discourage the target audience.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..Mr Milk said..D3 said..- why do rockets launch in a curve? Why don't they find the ideal location on earth to launch straight up to their destination?
Because if they went straight up, they'd fall straight down once the thrusters shut down. To maintain an orbit, they need to travelling over 17,000 mph around the earth, it's more efficient to get started on this on the way up.
No. They'd hit the dome if they didn't flatten out their trajectory. Nobody knows what would happen if the dome lost its integrity and only a fool would take the risk of finding out
I cannot believe the stuff you're saying. I thought you were too smart to fall for some dishonest conspiracy theory. I bet you even believe in the "wind turbines" that are actually there just to hold up the dome if it accidentally deflates.
The UN knows what happens when the dome loses its integrity; the aliens can get in. That's why the service doors where the dome comes down to ground level at "Antarctica" are well guarded airlocks only just big enough for the dome polishing machines to get out.
The only other way out is by "mines", which are holes in the ground that link up to the spaceports on the underside of the Earth. The reason "miners" are well paid is so they keep the secret; "FIFO" means they fly in and out from the underside of the Earth to send out the human slaves and bring back metal and oil from our reptilian overlords.
I'm not on board with the term "reptilian overlords" It's actually quite offensive and substitutes stereotyping for objectivity, as we are mostly quite democratic and generally don't work in positions of authority
What I really don't understand about people who put a lot of energy into putting down flat earthers and calling them/us "conspiracy theorists" is that they are often completely liberal in other areas.
Say a bloke should feel entirely free to put on a frock and go out dancing and they're all "right on, brother" "you live your life how you enjoy it" and would strongly decry anybody who says that's the end of the world as we know it.
But if a normally well informed person decides that planar geomorphology is an amusing idea they muster a huge amount of serious effort to prick their bubble.
Double standards!!!
You seem to think that it's a gateway drug like the antivax movement and we're all going to end up Q anon and on and on.
Flash news! It's not! If we want to get on a jet and travel halfway across the disc, we'll trust the pilot to get us there using the correct map.
But most of us don't want to jump on a jet because we care about global warming. What happens when the ice wall melts?
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..
Hey, reptilians are people too!
They prefer "Reptiloid"
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
What I really don't understand about people who put a lot of energy into putting down flat earthers and calling them/us "conspiracy theorists" is that they are often completely liberal in other areas.
Say a bloke should feel entirely free to put on a frock and go out dancing and they're all "right on, brother" "you live your life how you enjoy it" and would strongly decry anybody who says that's the end of the world as we know it.
But if a normally well informed person decides that planar geomorphology is an amusing idea they muster a huge amount of serious effort to prick their bubble.
Double standards!!!
You seem to think that it's a gateway drug like the antivax movement and we're all going to end up Q anon and on and on.
Flash news! It's not! If we want to get on a jet and travel halfway across the disc, we'll trust the pilot to get us there using the correct map.
But most of us don't want to jump on a jet because we care about global warming. What happens when the ice wall melts?
The guys who put on a frock and go dancing don't always slag off tens of thousands, or hundreds of millions, of people like flat earthers and conspiracy liars do. I know "guys" who put on frocks and Christians who believe that guys shouldn't put on frocks. Both types can be very fine people, and I'm not either type ( I don't believe in a god and not only do I not want to wear a frock but I'd look crap in one) so I'm not biased.
Flat earthers and conspiracy liars on the other hand are completely dishonest cowards whose basic stupid claim is that hundreds of millions of their fellow humans are morons or criminals. There's no logical way to compare that to someone wearing a frock, or someone who has reasonable grounds to believe they shouldn't.
People who believed in conspiracy theories built concentration camps. People who wear frocks didn't. That is one hell of a difference.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..Mr Milk said..
What I really don't understand about people who put a lot of energy into putting down flat earthers and calling them/us "conspiracy theorists" is that they are often completely liberal in other areas.
Say a bloke should feel entirely free to put on a frock and go out dancing and they're all "right on, brother" "you live your life how you enjoy it" and would strongly decry anybody who says that's the end of the world as we know it.
But if a normally well informed person decides that planar geomorphology is an amusing idea they muster a huge amount of serious effort to prick their bubble.
Double standards!!!
You seem to think that it's a gateway drug like the antivax movement and we're all going to end up Q anon and on and on.
Flash news! It's not! If we want to get on a jet and travel halfway across the disc, we'll trust the pilot to get us there using the correct map.
But most of us don't want to jump on a jet because we care about global warming. What happens when the ice wall melts?
The guys who put on a frock and go dancing don't always slag off tens of thousands, or hundreds of millions, of people like flat earthers and conspiracy liars do. I know "guys" who put on frocks and Christians who believe that guys shouldn't put on frocks. Both types can be very fine people, and I'm not either type ( I don't believe in a god and not only do I not want to wear a frock but I'd look crap in one) so I'm not biased.
Flat earthers and conspiracy liars on the other hand are completely dishonest cowards whose basic stupid claim is that hundreds of millions of their fellow humans are morons or criminals. There's no logical way to compare that to someone wearing a frock, or someone who has reasonable grounds to believe they shouldn't.
People who believed in conspiracy theories built concentration camps. People who wear frocks didn't. That is one hell of a difference.
Maaaate. Chris 249, you need to chill out. Have a snickers. Maybe watch the cricket.
Better still - why not take a 2 week vacation to New Carantocland - New Carantocland ?
You'll find it relaxs the mind and spirit. Refreshes the body and the soul. Its paradise on earth for one and all.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
What I really don't understand about people who put a lot of energy into putting down flat earthers and calling them/us "conspiracy theorists" is that they are often completely liberal in other areas.
Say a bloke should feel entirely free to put on a frock and go out dancing and they're all "right on, brother" "you live your life how you enjoy it" and would strongly decry anybody who says that's the end of the world as we know it.
But if a normally well informed person decides that planar geomorphology is an amusing idea they muster a huge amount of serious effort to prick their bubble.
Double standards!!!
You seem to think that it's a gateway drug like the antivax movement and we're all going to end up Q anon and on and on.
Flash news! It's not! If we want to get on a jet and travel halfway across the disc, we'll trust the pilot to get us there using the correct map.
But most of us don't want to jump on a jet because we care about global warming. What happens when the ice wall melts?
That's probably the most pathetic and preposterous analogy I've every read.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..Mr Milk said..
What I really don't understand about people who put a lot of energy into putting down flat earthers and calling them/us "conspiracy theorists" is that they are often completely liberal in other areas.
Say a bloke should feel entirely free to put on a frock and go out dancing and they're all "right on, brother" "you live your life how you enjoy it" and would strongly decry anybody who says that's the end of the world as we know it.
But if a normally well informed person decides that planar geomorphology is an amusing idea they muster a huge amount of serious effort to prick their bubble.
Double standards!!!
You seem to think that it's a gateway drug like the antivax movement and we're all going to end up Q anon and on and on.
Flash news! It's not! If we want to get on a jet and travel halfway across the disc, we'll trust the pilot to get us there using the correct map.
But most of us don't want to jump on a jet because we care about global warming. What happens when the ice wall melts?
The guys who put on a frock and go dancing don't always slag off tens of thousands, or hundreds of millions, of people like flat earthers and conspiracy liars do. I know "guys" who put on frocks and Christians who believe that guys shouldn't put on frocks. Both types can be very fine people, and I'm not either type ( I don't believe in a god and not only do I not want to wear a frock but I'd look crap in one) so I'm not biased.
Flat earthers and conspiracy liars on the other hand are completely dishonest cowards whose basic stupid claim is that hundreds of millions of their fellow humans are morons or criminals. There's no logical way to compare that to someone wearing a frock, or someone who has reasonable grounds to believe they shouldn't.
People who believed in conspiracy theories built concentration camps. People who wear frocks didn't. That is one hell of a difference.
I bet you like the frocks Chris
Select to expand quoteremery said..Mr Milk said..
What I really don't understand about people who put a lot of energy into putting down flat earthers and calling them/us "conspiracy theorists" is that they are often completely liberal in other areas.
Say a bloke should feel entirely free to put on a frock and go out dancing and they're all "right on, brother" "you live your life how you enjoy it" and would strongly decry anybody who says that's the end of the world as we know it.
But if a normally well informed person decides that planar geomorphology is an amusing idea they muster a huge amount of serious effort to prick their bubble.
Double standards!!!
You seem to think that it's a gateway drug like the antivax movement and we're all going to end up Q anon and on and on.
Flash news! It's not! If we want to get on a jet and travel halfway across the disc, we'll trust the pilot to get us there using the correct map.
But most of us don't want to jump on a jet because we care about global warming. What happens when the ice wall melts?
That's probably the most pathetic and preposterous analogy I've ever read.
As if you don't read your own posts !
Select to expand quoteremery said..
That's probably the most pathetic and preposterous analogy I've every read.
Thanks. That's high praise indeed. You think I've covered every angle then??
'Though I'm not sure your fine summation is not an oxymoron
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
People who believed in conspiracy theories built concentration camps. People who wear frocks didn't. That is one hell of a difference.
Check out the Inquisition. I'm pretty sure that's Tony Abbott's mates who wear frocks.
And I'm pretty sure that flat earthers haven't done that, although you might be able to enlighten me with an example showing otherwise
It's been a couple of days and I'm still waiting on Pcdefenders to get back with some answers.
In the meantime I thought I'd have a crack at answering one his questions. " So if you are correct and the frigate is travelling over a curve as you seem to be inferring then why do we not see the curve looking left to right across the horizon?"
Because this horizon is a circle around you, when you stand in the middle of that circle there is no curve left to right.
You can verify this by looking two ships on the horizon that are the same distance away from you, relative to your position on the earth these ships will be exactly the same elevation.
But here's where it gets interesting, say you're looking at 3 ships on the horizon over a 90 degree arc, ship A is to your left, ship B is 90 degrees to the right of A, and C is right in the middle.
Say that you're a shortarse and your height of eye is 1.7m, this will give you a visual horizon of about 5km depending on conditions.
You'll need to somewhere with a reasonably unobstructed view of the horizon. Out at sea is usually pretty good (water seeks level, right? 
).
You can now draw a Right angle triangle from you to ships A and B, sides are 5km and the hypotenuse is near enough 7km.
This imaginary hypotenuse is completely level relative to you (you could even set up some gadget involving levels and lasers to observe this) but you'll notice that ship C and a bit of the ocean are sitting further out from the hypotenuse because the horizon is a circle.
Ship C is still only 5km from you, but the hypotenuse from A to B is only 3.5km, making it appear like C could be further away. It would be hard to make out with the naked eye as the angle change looking at an object 3.5 km to 5km would be very small. (Tiny fraction of a degree)
This is not a difference in elevation for the vessels, just different points on the circumference of a circle relative to you.
What, you are still looking to use logic to argue a point. Heh, a beginner!
If logic worked, the same people would be sitting there thinking things through, but they have self-selected already as not those people.
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
It's been a couple of days and I'm still waiting on Pcdefenders to get back with some answers.
In the meantime I thought I'd have a crack at answering one his questions. " So if you are correct and the frigate is travelling over a curve as you seem to be inferring then why do we not see the curve looking left to right across the horizon?"
Because this horizon is a circle around you, when you stand in the middle of that circle there is no curve left to right.
You can verify this by looking two ships on the horizon that are the same distance away from you, relative to your position on the earth these ships will be exactly the same elevation.
But here's where it gets interesting, say you're looking at 3 ships on the horizon over a 90 degree arc, ship A is to your left, ship B is 90 degrees to the right of A, and C is right in the middle.
Say that you're a shortarse and your height of eye is 1.7m, this will give you a visual horizon of about 5km depending on conditions.
You'll need to somewhere with a reasonably unobstructed view of the horizon. Out at sea is usually pretty good (water seeks level, right? ).
You can now draw a Right angle triangle from you to ships A and B, sides are 5km and the hypotenuse is near enough 7km.
This imaginary hypotenuse is completely level relative to you (you could even set up some gadget involving levels and lasers to observe this) but you'll notice that ship C and a bit of the ocean are sitting further out from the hypotenuse because the horizon is a circle.
Ship C is still only 5km from you, but the hypotenuse from A to B is only 3.5km, making it appear like C could be further away. It would be hard to make out with the naked eye as the angle change looking at an object 3.5 km to 5km would be very small. (Tiny fraction of a degree)
This is not a difference in elevation for the vessels, just different points on the circumference of a circle relative to you.
Interesting, Pythagoras figured the 3-4-5 triangle thing out in 500 BC.
So, if Antarctic explorers went 300 km due east of Davis Station, then due north for 400 km, they would only need fuel for 500 km to make it back to Davis right?
Oh...
Yeah, but yeah, but...nah...but.......
everybody knows that things shrink when they get cold. So 1km in the freezing antartic interior isn't the same as 1km out over the warmer ocean area. Plus these explorers would have to go up and down hills and into and away from the winds. Plus, plus they'd be brave not to carry any contingency fuel. So I say they need more than 500km worth of fuel.
wait, seriously though, those scales don't show a 3:4:5. 500.00 to 1,000.00 isn't any ratio of 3/4/5 ??
...and continental drift. If they were going quite slow because things also slow down in the cold, then they have to take into account continental drift.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..Chris 249 said..
People who believed in conspiracy theories built concentration camps. People who wear frocks didn't. That is one hell of a difference.
Check out the Inquisition. I'm pretty sure that's Tony Abbott's mates who wear frocks.
And I'm pretty sure that flat earthers haven't done that, although you might be able to enlighten me with an example showing otherwise
There is no evidence that they were my 'mates....'
Sure we hung out sometimes, engaged in some locker-room banter. But that doesn't mean we are 'mates'
Also, those clothes worn by my associates are gowns or robes, not frocks....derrrr
^^^ And that's why they get defrocked, is it? You have to be in a frock in the first place.
I'll stop waiting for Pcdefender to respond, he's been suspended again.
Maybe I'll do some research on Moon landings and see if I can have a conversation with Snoidberg.
Select to expand quoteRails said..
?si=02xuqm2d85MigShb
Does that run through the basic maintenance and operation routine?
