Originally posted by @whodeyYou know, Whodey, the difference between a round earth and a flat earth.
Perfectly round?
No, say, mountains or valleys? 😛
None of them lack mountains or valleys.
The dispute is not about the Earth is perfectly spherical or not.
And that you already know. Are you MrFreaky's assistant, playing his game?
Originally posted by @whodeyIn most cases, scientists coming up with groundbreaking new theories already have permanent faculty positions. Their prestige may be at stake, but their careers aren't.
How about the free thinker who suggested the theory of plate tectonics?
How about the fate of the man who suggested ulcers were a result of bacterial invasion?
How about how any scientist is treated for deviating from the status quo?
Assuming that such theories can be proved, they are eventually absolved and revered, but the initial insult can be ...[text shortened]... e establishment with open arms, all because they wish not to upset the political powers that be.
Einstein most certainly did not add the cosmological constant (to which you refer) in order to appease "the status quo." By the time Einstein introduced general relativity (which also introduced the cosmological constant), 12 years after his landmark paper on special relativity, Einstein was already one of the (if not the) world's leading theoretical physicists. To suggest that he was afraid of what his colleagues might think is nothing short of idiotic. Interestingly, modern cosmological theories do include a cosmological constant to attempt to explain the increasing rate of expansion of the Universe.
As usual, you know nothing of the topic at hand and, with the gullibility of a feeble-minded child, swallow the analysis of propaganda rags, while arrogantly dismissing people working in the field who could actually teach you about the way science works.
Originally posted by @humyYou contradict yourself.
Nope. The fact the Earth is round was already verified before that video.
Try again.
Again.
Your own source declares the formula as accurate for distances less than 100 miles.
You cannot account for the visibility of objects which are within that 'acceptable' distance.
He cannot account for the visibility of objects which are within that 'acceptable' distance.
The ONLY refutation your source suggests is refraction, but he neither knows anything about the phenomena, nor does he offer the slightest support for such a refutation.
You simply cannot play by the very simple rules of science, so you resort to pettiness and childish name calling.
Just like a few other die-hard party-liners.
It's something, but it ain't science.
2 edits
Originally posted by @freakykbhso what?
Your own source declares the formula as accurate for distances less than 100 miles.
How does that mean that formula is accurate for more than 100 miles?
You cannot account for the visibility of objects which are within that 'acceptable' distance.
In what sense can we not "account for" the visibility of objects within 100 miles?
The ONLY refutation your source suggests is refraction,
refraction doesn't explain how the Earth could be flat nor the shape of the Earth but rather is this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction
Originally posted by @humyDo you really think you can convince him of anything?
so what?
Or do you enjoy the discussion with him?
Originally posted by @humyHe's got a lot of balls to be saying that!
Old Earth Creationism (belief system) ?
No, he must mean;
Ovarian Epithelial Cancer
I looked up OEC and that IS one of the things it sometimes means.
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/OEC