Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: SSPX on flat earth  (Read 7401 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Geremia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5048
  • Reputation: +1672/-373
  • Gender: Male
    • St. Isidore e-book library
Re: SSPX on flat earth
« Reply #30 on: July 11, 2023, 03:02:34 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • St. Isidore e-book library: https://isidore.co

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48011
    • Reputation: +28365/-5306
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX on flat earth
    « Reply #31 on: July 11, 2023, 07:02:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0




  • Ah, so Johnson resorts to the Jew paid shill "Professor" Dave (who took one science class before dropping out of school).  "10 Things All Flat Earthers Say" = 10 Flat Earth Strawmen (he almost admits as much in the very title)

    Still waiting for your refutation of see too far.  I can post links to videos all day debunking Not-a-Professor Dave, some done by actual professors, as a fraud.  Make your own arguments, Sean ... except that I know you have none, except for your puerile clinging to various pacifiers that you need to stay calm (see offer above).

    Johnson is having yet another one of his meltdown.  In fact, he's had a few lately if you add the Sister Lucia imposter scenario.  And this is how he always gets when that happens.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48011
    • Reputation: +28365/-5306
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX on flat earth
    « Reply #32 on: July 11, 2023, 07:23:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'll take just a brief second to debunk the top two false claims made by Sodomite Dave.

    1) gravity is just a theory.  It's admittedly a theory, and no one knows what it is or what causes it.  Explanations from top physicists range from electromagnetic forces, curving of space time, the simple laws of thermodynamics (one recent proposal by a top physicist), etc.  Even Neil de Grasse Tyson publicly admits that we don't know what it is.  We simply have an observation and can measure it and put math to it, i.e. the rate at which things fall, but we have zero idea what causes it or how it works, despite Sodomite Dave's ignorant claims to the contrary.  Indeed, the directionality of it is mere hypothesis, and the mythical attraction of masses on one another over a distance (something completely inexplicable) has never been proven or detected or explained.  Directionality could be due to electromagnetism, flow of ether, the laws of thermodynamics, or any other such explanation.  There's a top MIT professor on video teaching a class where he states that all the phenomena we observe on earth are due to electromagnetism, and by comparison the force of gravity is too weak to account for it.  So dropout-after-one-class-non-Professor-Sodomite-Dave knows better than an MIT professor.  Other REAL professors have put out videos debunking Dave's ignorance on other subjects outside of FE as well.

    2) 8 inches per mile squared.  Sodomite Dave is an idiot.  Indeed, everyone admits that 8 inches per mile squared is an approximation of a more complex trigonometric formula, but it's been demonstrated to be accurate within a few feet out to distances of about 20 miles.  Besides that, most FEs use various calculators to do actual measurements when considering the observations they've made.  Moron Dave, that formula does NOT show a "parabola".  Guy's either a total idiot or a liar.  Most likely a combination of the two.  While FEs throw the term out there for convenience, they use actual calculators to get the precise numbers when drawing conclusions about various observations.

    So 0/2 epic fails from Sodomite Dave.  If I feel like bothering, I'll expose the other 8 as well.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX on flat earth
    « Reply #33 on: July 11, 2023, 07:26:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • Ah, so Johnson resorts to the Jєω paid shill "Professor" Dave (who took one science class before dropping out of school).  "10 Things All Flat Earthers Say" = 10 Flat Earth Strawmen (he almost admits as much in the very title)

    Still waiting for your refutation of see too far.  I can post links to videos all day debunking Not-a-Professor Dave, some done by actual professors, as a fraud.  Make your own arguments, Sean ... except that I know you have none, except for your puerile clinging to various pacifiers that you need to stay calm (see offer above).

    Johnson is having yet another one of his meltdown.  In fact, he's had a few lately if you add the Sister Lucia imposter scenario.  And this is how he always gets when that happens.

    Hmm: Projection and ad hominem, but no refutation.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48011
    • Reputation: +28365/-5306
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX on flat earth
    « Reply #34 on: July 11, 2023, 07:28:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hmm: Projection and ad hominem, but no refutation.

    Nothing to refute, baboon.  Except I refuted the first two decisively above, and I'll get the others if I feel like it's worth my time to someone like you.  You've not yet made an argument.  I can post videos and articles until my fingers fall off from posting.


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX on flat earth
    « Reply #35 on: July 11, 2023, 07:28:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'll take just a brief second to debunk the top two false claims made by Sodomite Dave.

    1) gravity is just a theory.  It's admittedly a theory, and no one knows what it is or what causes it.  Explanations from top physicists range from electromagnetic forces, curving of space time, the simple laws of thermodynamics (one recent proposal by a top physicist), etc.  Even Neil de Grasse Tyson publicly admits that we don't know what it is.  We simply have an observation and can measure it and put math to it, i.e. the rate at which things fall, but we have zero idea what causes it or how it works, despite Sodomite Dave's ignorant claims to the contrary.  Indeed, the directionality of it is mere hypothesis, and the mythical attraction of masses on one another over a distance (something completely inexplicable) has never been proven or detected or explained.  Directionality could be due to electromagnetism, flow of ether, the laws of thermodynamics, or any other such explanation.  There's a top MIT professor on video teaching a class where he states that all the phenomena we observe on earth are due to electromagnetism, and by comparison the force of gravity is too weak to account for it.  So dropout-after-one-class-non-Professor-Sodomite-Dave knows better than an MIT professor.  Other REAL professors have put out videos debunking Dave's ignorance on other subjects outside of FE as well.

    2) 8 inches per mile squared.  Sodomite Dave is an idiot.  Indeed, everyone admits that 8 inches per mile squared is an approximation of a more complex trigonometric formula, but it's been demonstrated to be accurate within a few feet out to distances of about 20 miles.  Besides that, most FEs use various calculators to do actual measurements when considering the observations they've made.  Moron Dave, that formula does NOT show a "parabola".  Guy's either a total idiot or a liar.  Most likely a combination of the two.  While FEs throw the term out there for convenience, they use actual calculators to get the precise numbers when drawing conclusions about various observations.

    So 0/2 epic fails from Sodomite Dave.  If I feel like bothering, I'll expose the other 8 as well.

    It’s as though he didn’t even watch the video….just as the guy predicted.

    But that won’t stop Lad (the classical language major) from teaching us revisionist physics.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX on flat earth
    « Reply #36 on: July 11, 2023, 07:30:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Nothing to refute, baboon.  Except I refuted the first two decisively above, and I'll get the others if I feel like it's worth my time to someone like you.  You've not yet made an argument.  I can post videos and articles until my fingers fall off from posting.

    …and I haven’t the slightest doubt that you will!

    What would be better, is for you to post your comments on the video site, and we can all tune in as you are refuted point by point🤔
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48011
    • Reputation: +28365/-5306
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX on flat earth
    « Reply #37 on: July 11, 2023, 07:31:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48011
    • Reputation: +28365/-5306
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX on flat earth
    « Reply #38 on: July 11, 2023, 07:34:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It’s as though he didn’t even watch the video….just as the guy predicted.

    But that won’t stop Lad (the classical language major) from teaching us revisionist physics.

    Refute my points 1 and 2.  Your claim that I haven't watched the video means that you're either a liar or an idiot (not understanding the video).

    Before making another idiotic post and embarrassing yourself, refute what I wrote in the rebuttals to 1 and 2 above.

    There's nothing "revisionist" about it.  It's actually understood that gravity is a theory.  And it's been proven that 8 inches per miles squared does not show a parabola but is a reasonable approximation of the more complex trigonometric formula, and all FEs use calculators with the actual formula when commenting on their observations.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX on flat earth
    « Reply #39 on: July 11, 2023, 07:34:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48011
    • Reputation: +28365/-5306
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX on flat earth
    « Reply #40 on: July 11, 2023, 07:37:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • His point #3 is correct as the water find its level argument is invalid.  I've never used that one.  While his examples of water curvature on the small scale are equally invalid, if there's a gravitation force pulling water toward the center of the earth, there would be a curvature across long distances.

    Where he's incorrect are 1) using examples of water droplets and 2) his false claim that "all" Flat Earthers use the argument.  This Flat Earther (myself) does not.


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX on flat earth
    « Reply #41 on: July 11, 2023, 07:38:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Refute my points 1 and 2.  Your claim that I haven't watched the video means that you're either a liar or an idiot (not understanding the video).

    Before making another idiotic post and embarrassing yourself, refute what I wrote in the rebuttals to 1 and 2 above.

    There's nothing "revisionist" about it.  It's actually understood that gravity is a theory.  And it's been proven that 8 inches per miles squared does not show a parabola but is a reasonable approximation of the more complex trigonometric formula, and all FEs use calculators with the actual formula when commenting on their observations.


    No, no, no, Lad!

    You got me all wrong!

    You see, unlike yourself, I don’t perceive myself as the ultimate authority on everything I have an opinion on.

    Rather, I prefer to listen to the experts, instead of the pseudo-fora experts.

    So here’s what you need to do:

    You start posting your idiotic, unqualified, incompetent responses on the video sites, and we’ll all tune in and see how you fare!

    Have at it!

    :popcorn:
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48011
    • Reputation: +28365/-5306
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX on flat earth
    « Reply #42 on: July 11, 2023, 07:44:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Point 4, his assertion that people think vacuums "suck".  Everybody refers to vacuum suction for shorthand, but everyone knows that it's due to the laws of thermodynamics pushing matter outward into the vacuum.  So yet another false strawman.  He merely states his "gradient" theory in half a sentence without proving it, but actual scientific experiments have debunked it.  It's circular reasoning, as has been thoroughly debunked by people like Dr. John D (and actual Ph.D., unlike non-doctor-Dave).  Gravity is too weak a force to overcome the force of matter pushing into the vacuum and the second law of thermodynamics.

    So Sodomite Dave is 1/4 through 4 points.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX on flat earth
    « Reply #43 on: July 11, 2023, 07:49:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Point 4, his assertion that people think vacuums "suck".  Everybody refers to vacuum suction for shorthand, but everyone knows that it's due to the laws of thermodynamics pushing matter outward into the vacuum.  So yet another false strawman.  He merely states his "gradient" theory in half a sentence without proving it, but actual scientific experiments have debunked it.  It's circular reasoning, as has been thoroughly debunked by people like Dr. John D (and actual Ph.D., unlike non-doctor-Dave).  Gravity is too weak a force to overcome the force of matter pushing into the vacuum and the second law of thermodynamics.

    So Sodomite Dave is 1/4 through 4 points.

    Why are you yapping about this here, when you should be posting on the video site?

    I think we all know the answer.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48011
    • Reputation: +28365/-5306
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX on flat earth
    « Reply #44 on: July 11, 2023, 07:51:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 5 -- water on a spinning ball.  Sodomite Dave is half right.  While he's correct that demonstrations of spinning wet tennis balls in circles is meaningless, nevertheless, the rotation of the earth is admitted by mainstream scientists to create a centrifugal force that's sufficient to account for what they claim to be a 14-mile bulge at the equator.  So there is a purported centrifugal force that can be shown by demonstration not to exist.  Numbers are clear that the same masses should weigh less at the equator than in the far North due to centrifugal force, but experiments have show this not to be the case.  Nevertheless, this is not even a point about Flat Earth proper but about whether the earth moves / rotates or remains stationary.

    So I'll give Sodomite Dave a 1/2 on this point, correct that some of the "demonstrations" of the spinning web tennis ball are invalid, but he loses 1/2 for being unaware that there nevertheless should remain a real and measurable centrifugal force if the earth were rotating.

    So it's at 1.5 / 5.