Elections Academic "Science" has been contaminated for a long time now in the US

[Voodoo_Child906]

I really do not understand why no one can grasp the concept of arguing with a flat earther who doesn't believe satellites exist, linking a government website that shows satellite diagrams isn't going to prove anything.
You're basically insisting to them that satellites are responsible, and that's that. There is no actual proof.
We're just going in circles while you repeat the same shit, relying on a point that flat earthers dispute to prove your point.

Trust me bro.

You asked for this when you said:

"You still are yet to even show what documents show this."

I just gave it to you! Now you're saying "There is no actual proof."

Now what actual proof would you (or these "flat earthers") need here. Please be specific.

 

[kflo]

You asked for this when you said:

"You still are yet to even show what documents show this."

I just gave it to you! Now you're saying "There is no actual proof."

Now what actual proof would you (or these "flat earthers") need here. Please be specific.

If satellites don’t exist
And if pictures from space don’t exist
And gravity doesn’t exist
And galaxies don’t exist
And reality doesn’t exist
And we are surrounded by ice walls
Then prove the earth is a sphere……

 

[OneOfOne]

You guys keep asking about satellites. Yet you can't even explain why we can pull out binoculars and see ships that have sailed past the horizon on a ball.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

If satellites don’t exist
And if pictures from space don’t exist
And gravity doesn’t exist
And galaxies don’t exist
And reality doesn’t exist
And we are surrounded by ice walls
Then prove the earth is a sphere……

Me: GPS uses a globe model for the earth, It's all in their documentation
CRD: You have yet to show any documentation that says that
Me: Here it is
CRD: Well okay, but I don't... I mean flat earthers don't believe in that so it doesn't count
Me: Well what counts then
CRD:

Let's see what he says

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

You guys keep asking about satellites. Yet you can't even explain why we can pull out binoculars and see ships that have sailed past the horizon on a ball.

<Lmaoo>

 

[OneOfOne]

When one points out problems with the globe model its bait. Nice.

 

[CyberRubberDuck]

You asked for this when you said:

"You still are yet to even show what documents show this."

I just gave it to you! Now you're saying "There is no actual proof."

Now what actual proof would you (or these "flat earthers") need here. Please be specific.

FFS. All that says is the obvious, that satellites do blah blah blah. As if I'm actually asking for a government something that fucking says satellites are up there.
I am asking for the documents that state that GPS is based around a curved earth. Not the fact they say satellites do it, I'm talking about the actual fundamentals of the system itself. Pablo I think it was said there are literally mathematical models to prove it.

Where the fuck are they? I'm only fucking asking for what he stated exists as proof.
Fuck me your level of stupidity is astounding.

 

[kflo]

FFS. All that says is the obvious, that satellites do blah blah blah. As if I'm actually asking for a government something that fucking says satellites are up there.
I am asking for the documents that state that GPS is based around a curved earth. Not the fact they say satellites do it, I'm talking about the actual fundamentals of the system itself. Pablo I think it was said there are literally mathematical models to prove it.

Where the fuck are they? I'm only fucking asking for what he stated exists as proof.
Fuck me your level of stupidity is astounding.

did you click the links @Sinister provided?

it's amazing you're actually requesting such information to begin with................

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

FFS. All that says is the obvious, that satellites do blah blah blah. As if I'm actually asking for a government something that fucking says satellites are up there.
I am asking for the documents that state that GPS is based around a curved earth. Not the fact they say satellites do it, I'm talking about the actual fundamentals of the system itself. Pablo I think it was said there are literally mathematical models to prove it.

Where the fuck are they? I'm only fucking asking for what he stated exists as proof.
Fuck me your level of stupidity is astounding.

Here you go:

https://gisgeography.com/wgs84-world-geodetic-system/

It consists of a reference ellipsoid, a standard coordinate system, altitude data, and a geoid.

Similar to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83), it uses the Earth’s center mass as the coordinate origin.

WGS84 includes a mathematical model of the Earth's ellipsoidal shape, which closely approximates the planet's actual shape. It also provides a coordinate system with latitude, longitude, and sometimes altitude values, which allow for accurate positioning of geographic features and locations on the Earth's surface. WGS84 is the primary reference system for GPS.

 

[Sinister]

Flat-Earth argument: "Prove to me that GPS confirms the Earth is round."

GPS engineers: "Well, we use satellites for GPS, and to figure out where to launch them and where they need to orbit, we begin with a globe Earth model for the correct calculations."

FEA: "....well, how about when I just dont believe satellites are real?"

GPSE: "Wait what? No we're telling you we launch satellites, they're visible with telescopes, we even use some of them to take pictures and your phone is using one right now. That's what we do all day. So to make sure everything works right we begin on the premise that the Earth is round."

FEA: ".....yeah that all sounds INSANE to me. You could just be doing all that with towers and balloons if the Earth was flat."

GPSE: "I guess if the Earth WAS flat that might be possible, but that's not how we..."

FEA: "Yeah you literally cant prove the Earth is round so I see no reason to trust you."

 

[CyberRubberDuck]

Here you go:

https://gisgeography.com/wgs84-world-geodetic-system/

It consists of a reference ellipsoid, a standard coordinate system, altitude data, and a geoid.

Similar to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83), it uses the Earth’s center mass as the coordinate origin.

WGS84 includes a mathematical model of the Earth's ellipsoidal shape, which closely approximates the planet's actual shape. It also provides a coordinate system with latitude, longitude, and sometimes altitude values, which allow for accurate positioning of geographic features and locations on the Earth's surface. WGS84 is the primary reference system for GPS.

Ok I'm bored now. You keep giving piss poor examples of what you consider proof and when I highlight that fact, you cry like a little girl.
That link you posted is basically just echoing what you've already been saying, except it gives a bit of detail about reference points and conversion to and from flat maps. So it's basically saying that everywhere on earth has a pre measured grid reference (makes sense obviously).
But that still isn't actually evidence, nor is it that mathematical model Pablo claimed existed. It's just an explanation of how the map references are detailed. So yep, linking to an article that explains how they convert to or from flat maps, is not that evidence Pablo promised. It's just regurgitation of the same stuff you've been desperately repeating the last few days.

Let's just leave it as you trust the experts and that is where your required level of proof ends.
I'll leave it as I still have an open mind, and am not actually bothered either way. As I started this out, both sides have people that make some retarded arguments. This discussion has done nothing but strengthen that point where it comes to your side.
I'll leave you to 'trust the experts bro'.

 

[Sinister]

What a retarded argument.

 

[OneOfOne]

"Everything I dont understand is retarded"

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Ok I'm bored now. You keep giving piss poor examples of what you consider proof and when I highlight that fact, you cry like a little girl.
That link you posted is basically just echoing what you've already been saying, except it gives a bit of detail about reference points and conversion to and from flat maps. So it's basically saying that everywhere on earth has a pre measured grid reference (makes sense obviously).
But that still isn't actually evidence, nor is it that mathematical model Pablo claimed existed. It's just an explanation of how the map references are detailed. So yep, linking to an article that explains how they convert to or from flat maps, is not that evidence Pablo promised. It's just regurgitation of the same stuff you've been desperately repeating the last few days.

Let's just leave it as you trust the experts and that is where your required level of proof ends.
I'll leave it as I still have an open mind, and am not actually bothered either way. As I started this out, both sides have people that make some retarded arguments. This discussion has done nothing but strengthen that point where it comes to your side.
I'll leave you to 'trust the experts bro'.

<Lmaoo>

Oh, so now that you're given the mathematical model that you were crying about you "get bored" and run away LOL. The World Geodetic System that GPS utilizes, is a mathematical model to represent the Earth's shape, dimensions and approximates the Earth's geoid. Reading your last message was really satisfying, thank you for that.

 

[dirtypablo]

"Everything I dont understand is retarded"

The fact that you guys think we're the ones who don't understand is truly mind blowing.

 

[dirtypablo]

Ok I'm bored now. You keep giving piss poor examples of what you consider proof and when I highlight that fact, you cry like a little girl.
That link you posted is basically just echoing what you've already been saying, except it gives a bit of detail about reference points and conversion to and from flat maps. So it's basically saying that everywhere on earth has a pre measured grid reference (makes sense obviously).
But that still isn't actually evidence, nor is it that mathematical model Pablo claimed existed. It's just an explanation of how the map references are detailed. So yep, linking to an article that explains how they convert to or from flat maps, is not that evidence Pablo promised. It's just regurgitation of the same stuff you've been desperately repeating the last few days.

Let's just leave it as you trust the experts and that is where your required level of proof ends.
I'll leave it as I still have an open mind, and am not actually bothered either way. As I started this out, both sides have people that make some retarded arguments. This discussion has done nothing but strengthen that point where it comes to your side.
I'll leave you to 'trust the experts bro'.

Jesus Christ dude how many times do I have to explain that the models I was talking about were for the orbital motion of satellites. I never claimed there were models that prove some hypothetical gps couldn't work on a flat earth, I said we have models explaining how it works on a globe, something you can't provide for a flat earth. Not only have I explained this to you multiple times, but I asked you to quote where I said what you're claiming, and the one single quote you had didn't say that at all, but you defended it by saying well that's what you meant.


Seriously, you've got to be one of the most insanely overconfident stupid people I've ever come across. I genuinely don't think I've ever met someone so uneducated and ignorant about how the world works while simultaneously believing they're an intelligent and rational thinker.

 

[kflo]

Ok I'm bored now. You keep giving piss poor examples of what you consider proof and when I highlight that fact, you cry like a little girl.
That link you posted is basically just echoing what you've already been saying, except it gives a bit of detail about reference points and conversion to and from flat maps. So it's basically saying that everywhere on earth has a pre measured grid reference (makes sense obviously).
But that still isn't actually evidence, nor is it that mathematical model Pablo claimed existed. It's just an explanation of how the map references are detailed. So yep, linking to an article that explains how they convert to or from flat maps, is not that evidence Pablo promised. It's just regurgitation of the same stuff you've been desperately repeating the last few days.

Let's just leave it as you trust the experts and that is where your required level of proof ends.
I'll leave it as I still have an open mind, and am not actually bothered either way. As I started this out, both sides have people that make some retarded arguments. This discussion has done nothing but strengthen that point where it comes to your side.
I'll leave you to 'trust the experts bro'.

Plot twist! CRD is on the fence! The earth may actually be flat!

 

[lilelvis]

@CyberRubberDuck taking some sherscientists for a ride.. fucking hilarious..

“nu-uh, I’m smarter”.

you’ll never get these hours back, Sherbro’s..


Edit: L fuckin’ OL…

 

[dreden1982]

Why the fuck would people want us to a THINK that the earth is a globe if it isn't? Sick shit.

 

[CyberRubberDuck]

Jesus Christ dude how many times do I have to explain that the models I was talking about were for the orbital motion of satellites. I never claimed there were models that prove some hypothetical gps couldn't work on a flat earth, I said we have models explaining how it works on a globe, something you can't provide for a flat earth. Not only have I explained this to you multiple times, but I asked you to quote where I said what you're claiming, and the one single quote you had didn't say that at all, but you defended it by saying well that's what you meant.


Seriously, you've got to be one of the most insanely overconfident stupid people I've ever come across. I genuinely don't think I've ever met someone so uneducated and ignorant about how the world works while simultaneously believing they're an intelligent and rational thinker.

Pot and kettle comes to mind.
You didn't bring up the subject of mathematical models to simply highlight how it would work on a globe. You brought it up as some sort or argument as to why it's irrefutable that it's a globe.
And when I asked why it couldn't be done without orbiting satellites and instead using balloon satellites, you came out with some shit about it being impossible to know a balloons location. When I pointed out how obviously simple it would be to know the balloons (receiver) location , you ignored that point you'd claimed and moved onto something else. Because it's fucking obvious that these models for satellite motion wouldn't be the only way of doing it. I think you realised how stupid that claim was after saying it but hoped it would go away.
Then rather than concede "ok well my mathematical model argument isn't really an argument at all, more just a passing comment", you cling on and keep trying to make out it has some relevance in the argument on this thread. You have completely failed to grasp the concept of how your world view can be questioned, and so far it has simply boiled down to exactly what one of one said about you all.
Trust me bro science. You don't actually know this shit to be true, it's literally just a belief in a certain group of people and what they're telling you. Calling themselves experts is how you justify to yourself that it's more than that.

Plot twist! CRD is on the fence! The earth may actually be flat!

I think this 'twist' was realised pages and pages ago. That mod who likes to derail threads realised it pretty quickly.
When I say pretty quickly, I mean in like my first post.