Are there any Flat Earth believers here?

[Tazarah]

Not if it is part of your conditional statement. Once again you are contradicting yourself since the condition in about the railway involves whether Earth is round or not.

You need to be logically consistent in your arguments.

OK, the earth is round.

But still, the two railways did not form an arc.

And I never said that they did.

......

 

[Tazarah]

Not if it is part of your conditional statement. Once again you are contradicting yourself since the condition in about the railway involves whether Earth is round or not.

You need to be logically consistent in your arguments.

It’s not a matter of whether or not the earth is round, it’s a matter of what I claimed — which is that the railway did not form an arc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, the earth is round.

But still, the two railways did not form an arc.

And I never said that they did.

......

What was your conditional statement?

 

[Tazarah]

What was your conditional statement?

What did I claim?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s not a matter of whether or not the earth is round, it’s a matter of what I claimed — which is that the railway did not form an arc.

Only after you claimed what?

 

[Tazarah]

Only after you claimed what?

I claimed that the railway should, but did not form an arc.

I never claimed that the railway formed an arc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What did I claim?

Your all important conditional statement:

"if the earth were round, then at a certain point the railway should form an arc reaching a certain height "

 

[Subduction Zone]

I claimed that the railway should, but did not form an arc.

I never claimed that the railway formed an arc.

You can try to ignore your conditional statement but it will always be out there.

 

[Tazarah]

Your all important conditional statement:

"if the earth were round, then at a certain point the railway should form an arc reaching a certain height "

My exact words were:

“if the earth were round, then at a certain point the railway should form an arc reaching a certain height — which it does not.”

Why do you keep leaving out the words after the — ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's try another one. You seem to be fairly conservative politically.

If you had promised your kids before the last presidential election:

"If Trump wins I will buy you each a sundae."

Do you owe your kids a sundae?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

“if the earth were round, then at a certain point the railway should form an arc reaching a certain height — which it does not.”

The railway does curve with the Earth's surface. But we aren't talking about a ball, but a very massive object. Railroads aren't laid with 100-mile long pieces, but by much smaller pieces that have been traditionally carried in, by hand, by a few workers.
I'm also guessing you've never flown (or never flown during the day) because you can see the Earth's curvature all the way up there. And also consider that an approach ship at see will gradually appear/vanish to observers on the shore.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My exact words were:

“if the earth were round, then at a certain point the railway should form an arc reaching a certain height — which it does not.”

Why do you keep leaving out the words after the — ?

Because they are after the conditional statement. We are dealing only with the conditional statement right now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The railway does curve with the Earth's surface. But we aren't talking about a ball, but a very massive object. Railroads aren't laid with 100-mile long pieces, but by much smaller pieces that have been traditionally carried in, by hand, by a few workers.
I'm also guessing you've never flown (or never flown during the day) because you can see the Earth's curvature all the way up there. And also consider that an approach ship at see will gradually appear/vanish to observers on the shore.

He has a terrible understanding of the curvature of the Earth. He does not understand that the surface of the curve at sea level is a curve of equal potential.

 

[Tazarah]

The railway does curve with the Earth's surface. But we aren't talking about a ball, but a very massive object. Railroads aren't laid with 100-mile long pieces, but by much smaller pieces that have been traditionally carried in, by hand, by a few workers.
I'm also guessing you've never flown (or never flown during the day) because you can see the Earth's curvature all the way up there. And also consider that an approach ship at see will gradually appear/vanish to observers on the shore.

The railway that was part of the experiment that I mentioned did not curve, maybe the people who did the measurements got it wrong.

And even if I am wrong and the railway does curve (which I admit is not impossible), does the statement that I made mean that I myself am claiming that the railway forms an arc?

 

[Tazarah]

He has a terrible understanding of the curvature of the Earth. He does not understand that the surface of the curve at sea level is a curve of equal potential.

Like I said, this isn’t about whether or not the earth curves. This is about you putting words into my mouth and changing the things that I say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The railway that was part of the experiment that I mentioned did not curve, maybe the people who did the measurements got it wrong.

And even if I am wrong and the railway does curve (which I admit is not impossible), does the statement that I made mean that I myself am claiming that the railway forms an arc?

No, they got their prediction wrong. A global Earth makes not such prediction.

And yes, your statement as you formed it did mean that you predicted an arc. One needs to be careful with predictive statements.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I can tell that this simple concept seems to be beyond you. Would you like to discuss a test for human evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like I said, this isn’t about whether or not the earth curves. This is about you putting words into my mouth and changing the things that I say.

But I don't do that. I only interpret what you are saying properly.

 

[Tazarah]

No, they got their prediction wrong. A global Earth makes not such prediction.

And yes, your statement as you formed it did mean that you predicted an arc. One needs to be careful with predictive statements.

I did not predict an arc, and I did not claim that one was formed. I don’t know who taught you how to read and comprehend english, but it’s clear that I myself claimed that an arc was not formed, because one was not formed. OK, the people got the measurements wrong — but at the end of the day an arc was not formed and I never claimed that an arc was formed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That was yesterday. Or was it the day before? With all of this talk of conditional statements he may be able to understand a test. Though I doubt it.