The Drake Equation Fallacy

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: TzarChasm

I tend to question intelligent life on this planet when turbo posts

Posts like yours leave no question about it!

heh... why because I give you legit answers you simply don't understand?

simple concepts like lift... are beyond your capacity to grasp... and you ignore anything and everything that shows your nonsense to be absolute idiocy... most of us just gave up explaining these things to you...

its like talking to a child... except they would understand IF that was the case...

have fun people

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: TzarChasm

I tend to question intelligent life on this planet when turbo posts

Posts like yours leave no question about it!

heh... why because I give you legit answers you simply don't understand?

simple concepts like lift... are beyond your capacity to grasp... and you ignore anything and everything that shows your nonsense to be absolute idiocy... most of us just gave up explaining these things to you...

its like talking to a child... except they would understand IF that was the case...

have fun people

Lift is the force used by birds to achieve flight within air, which is not opposed by any force within Earth, that supposedly pulls objects down to Earth's surface. Which means no force exists within Earth, pulling objects down, or resisting any object from leaving Earth's surface, only the mass and density of the object keeps them on the surface all the time, except objects with less mass and density using a force to lift above the surface. Only when they stop using that force, will they fall to the surface, like all objects within air. Even birds and insects have more mass and density than the air, so they will fall in air without using force to fly above the surface.

This does not require lame excuses, conflicting claims, like your side. It all fits perfectly, because it is true. False claims need excuses, twisted arguments, conflicting claims, and inevitably, they all fail miserably, in the end.

a reply to: turbonium1

And yet things still fall in a vacuum.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: oldcarpy
Please jump off a tall building and tell me that gravity is not real.

You think 'gravity' is proven by falling through air?? Some 'force' is 'pulling' us down to Earth, because we fall through air?

Birds and insects fly above Earth, they don't get 'pulled' down to Earth. They face no RESISTANCE from below, either.

A great force that cannot 'pull down' birds and insects, is NO force at all!

Good grief.
The motto of this site is "Deny Ignorance" - not "Flaunt Ignorance".

Then why are you ignoring the points I made, if you don't want to 'flaunt ignorance'?

Stick to the issue, and act like a mature adult, because posts like this are a waste of everyone's time.

I noted that birds and insects face no resistance at all, when opposing your supposed force within Earth, that somehow is powerful enough to hold all objects to Earth, hold and curve oceans around a ball-shaped Earth, and even hold the entire atmosphere exactly in place, while spinning 1000 mph, and zipping around the Sun at 6700 mph, and all of it speeds around the galaxy at 490,000 mph.

But somehow, it cannot even offer resistance against a tiny mosquito, freely flying above the Earth!

That alone proves there is no force within Earth, pulling/holding us down to the surface. The only way such a force would exist, is by offering resistance to opposing forces. Same way a magnet does. In fact, 'gravity' should act the same as a magnet does, except for all objects, instead of only materials with magnetic properties, such as metals.

The most fundamental claim of gravity is that it holds/pulls all objects to Earth's surface, which means 'gravity' would have to be an actual force, like magnetic force, or so forth. As a directional force, like a magnet, gravity would offer resistance to opposing forces, which go in the opposite direction, AWAY from the Earth's surface.

Since opposing forces, going away from Earth's surface, face absolutely no resistance from any sort of force within Earth, the most fundamental claim about gravity fails to hold up. You cannot have it both ways, a force that pulls all objects down to Earth, and a force which does not resist objects going AWAY from Earth. There is simply no excuse for it, 'gravity' does not exist within Earth, and that's a fact proven by offering no resistance to opposing forces.


Ignore it all you want, but this is the reality.

Mature adults do not peddle embarrasingly ridiculous nonsense and know how birds and insects fly.
They also realise that there is no point engaging in any sensible discussion with a Flat Earther who thinks gravity, nukes etc etc are fake.

a reply to: turbonium1

The current explanation of astronomy is most definitely insufficient. The new breakthroughs that are required to come up with a comprehensive theory are out there to be discovered. It might be best not to share your studies until you find a concrete empirical equation or phenomenon to base it on. I say this from experience... If everything cannot be explained, then it may not be worth giving an incomplete answer.

There are more integral truths - justice, mercy, faith and so on - that need to be addressed that are much less confusing than finding a perfect explanation of geo-astronomical observations.

originally posted by: oldcarpy

Mature adults do not peddle embarrasingly ridiculous nonsense and know how birds and insects fly.
They also realise that there is no point engaging in any sensible discussion with a Flat Earther who thinks gravity, nukes etc etc are fake.

That's really addressing the problems! Just say everyone 'knows' why birds and insects fly, except for 'Flat Earth' people who think 'gravity' and nukes are fake!!

Who is the one pointing out instruments on airplanes that measure LEVEL FLIGHT?

It's ironic that you preach 'science', except when it bites you in the arse, and suddenly, it all becomes about magical non-existent, fantasy 'forces'!

Try addressing the issues, and drop the ignorant rhetoric you'd been brainwashed by these liars who have trained us since childhood about.

I'm not scared to see the truth, in front of my eyes. When I know that planes fly level for six hours, and don't have to adjust for 1600 feet of supposed 'curvature', I don't need excuses about a magical force within Earth to explain it. The instruments on planes prove the Earth is flat, it isn't a magical force within Earth manipulating instruments on planes doing it.

Use your own intelligence, and think for yourself, instead of these phony 'experts' who support all these lies, and you'll see the truth for once.

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: turbonium1

And yet things still fall in a vacuum.

All objects FALL through air, except those - like birds and insects - with light enough mass and density, to apply force (ie: lift) of their own, to rise above the Earth.

An object without force - like a balloon - rise above Earth because they have less mass and density than air, so they rise above the Earth.

There is NO FORCE 'pulling objects down to Earth's surface'! Birds, insects and balloons prove that. You cannot look at an object on Earth, and say there must be something 'holding' it to the surface, simply because it is ON the surface!!

The 'round Earth' theory requires a 'force' to hold all objects to a ball, and without a 'force', the ball Earth theory fails to work. You cannot explain a ball holding objects to it, unless there is some 'force' in play, 'holding' everything to the huge spheroid that is zipping randomly through an infinite universe.

After you have a non-existent BALL planet, you need a non-existent FORCE, to glue all the objects, oceans, and atmosphere to the ball, and make up excuses about why it doesn't work, doesn't work like any other force, to support your ball planet argument/

When people point out the problems in your theory, you cannot resolve them, so you try to disparage their character, instead of addressing the issues.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: turbonium1

The current explanation of astronomy is most definitely insufficient. The new breakthroughs that are required to come up with a comprehensive theory are out there to be discovered. It might be best not to share your studies until you find a concrete empirical equation or phenomenon to base it on. I say this from experience... If everything cannot be explained, then it may not be worth giving an incomplete answer.

There are more integral truths - justice, mercy, faith and so on - that need to be addressed that are much less confusing than finding a perfect explanation of geo-astronomical observations.

You have a feeling the explanations they give us are not sufficient, but you still don't understand the reason you feel that way. I''m speaking to you, as someone who understands the flaws in 'evolution' claims, because you've researched the whole issue, instead of relying on so-called 'experts'.

When I pointed out that plane instruments measure flights as LEVEL, which means LEVEL, and nothing but LEVEL, they make up this story about how LEVEL means 'LEVEL TO THE BALL PLANET'. There is no 'level to the ball planet'. There is no magical force within Earth making airplane instruments read 'level, as 'level to the ball planet'. It is completely ridiculous. A so-called 'science' does not invent a fantasy force, that magically makes instruments on airplanes read 'LEVEL', even though it is NOT level!!

'Gravity' is a magical, fantasy force, that they use to resolve all their problems, because 'gravity' doesn't even exist in the first place. 'Gravity' can hold, and pull, all objects to Earth, hold the oceans around a ball, hold the atmosphere in place, hold the moon in place, but cannot even resist - let alone hold/pull down - birds and insects to the Earth! So they claim 'gravity' is not really a 'force', but since they've convinced everyone it actually exists, nobody cares anymore!

This is exactly how they have made 'Evolution' a 'fact' throughout the world, when it is complete nonsense. This refers to 'macro-evolution', where species change, over X time, into completely new, different species. This - despite all their denial, and excuses - is the fundamental claim of 'Evolution'. That all species 'evolve' into other species.

We know it is nonsense, of course. Every species is the same as always before, always afterwards, and none have ever shown ANY indication of change.

If you research the subject of Earth being round, and not flat, you will see the same problems they have with 'Evolution' theories, that there is no evidence to support it, just the opposite.

I urge you to look into the issue without blinders, like you have with 'Evolution', to understand what is really going on here... and if you do, please come back here and post your thoughts, whatever they may be...

earth is actually a wave as everyone can clearly see... flops around like a fish...

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: TzarChasm

I tend to question intelligent life on this planet when turbo posts

Posts like yours leave no question about it!

heh... why because I give you legit answers you simply don't understand?

simple concepts like lift... are beyond your capacity to grasp... and you ignore anything and everything that shows your nonsense to be absolute idiocy... most of us just gave up explaining these things to you...

its like talking to a child... except they would understand IF that was the case...

have fun people

Lift is the force used by birds to achieve flight within air, which is not opposed by any force within Earth, that supposedly pulls objects down to Earth's surface. Which means no force exists within Earth, pulling objects down, or resisting any object from leaving Earth's surface, only the mass and density of the object keeps them on the surface all the time, except objects with less mass and density using a force to lift above the surface. Only when they stop using that force, will they fall to the surface, like all objects within air. Even birds and insects have more mass and density than the air, so they will fall in air without using force to fly above the surface.

This does not require lame excuses, conflicting claims, like your side. It all fits perfectly, because it is true. False claims need excuses, twisted arguments, conflicting claims, and inevitably, they all fail miserably, in the end.

This sounds utterly delusional to me and wrong.

Here’s the thing. I believe/think you’re arguing that air is the controlling factor? Maybe? The post is incoherent to the point I’m having to guess a little bit...

There is some validity to removing air resistance from flight creating a huge leap in capabilities. But that would mean you have to create a bubble inside know atmospheric space that creates a zero drag environment. To my knowledge - that hasn’t been done. Even then you’d likely have to overcome G force.

Long/short I see this as a ranting. Not conclusive proof or understanding. Maybe another member can tell me how I’m wrong.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

But that would mean you have to create a bubble inside know atmospheric space that creates a zero drag environment.

Not to mention removing aerodynamic lift.
Screw Bernoulli. Who needs him?

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: TzarChasm

I tend to question intelligent life on this planet when turbo posts

Posts like yours leave no question about it!

heh... why because I give you legit answers you simply don't understand?

simple concepts like lift... are beyond your capacity to grasp... and you ignore anything and everything that shows your nonsense to be absolute idiocy... most of us just gave up explaining these things to you...

its like talking to a child... except they would understand IF that was the case...

have fun people

Lift is the force used by birds to achieve flight within air, which is not opposed by any force within Earth, that supposedly pulls objects down to Earth's surface. Which means no force exists within Earth, pulling objects down, or resisting any object from leaving Earth's surface, only the mass and density of the object keeps them on the surface all the time, except objects with less mass and density using a force to lift above the surface. Only when they stop using that force, will they fall to the surface, like all objects within air. Even birds and insects have more mass and density than the air, so they will fall in air without using force to fly above the surface.

This does not require lame excuses, conflicting claims, like your side. It all fits perfectly, because it is true. False claims need excuses, twisted arguments, conflicting claims, and inevitably, they all fail miserably, in the end.

This sounds utterly delusional to me and wrong.

Here’s the thing. I believe/think you’re arguing that air is the controlling factor? Maybe? The post is incoherent to the point I’m having to guess a little bit...

There is some validity to removing air resistance from flight creating a huge leap in capabilities. But that would mean you have to create a bubble inside know atmospheric space that creates a zero drag environment. To my knowledge - that hasn’t been done. Even then you’d likely have to overcome G force.

Long/short I see this as a ranting. Not conclusive proof or understanding. Maybe another member can tell me how I’m wrong.

The only factor is our environment, which is not anything like they claim, and most accept as true, that's the first problem here.

Planes don't fly over a sphere, they'd always have to adjust for curvature in all flights, and we know they don't adjust at all, for any supposed 'curvature'.

What would prove Earth is a sphere, was a ship vanishing over the curvature, which was proven a false claim, and nothing else proves their claim, either.

Merry Christmas!!

Merry Christmas to all!

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: turbonium1

And yet things still fall in a vacuum.

All objects FALL through air, except those - like birds and insects - with light enough mass and density, to apply force (ie: lift) of their own, to rise above the Earth.

An object without force - like a balloon - rise above Earth because they have less mass and density than air, so they rise above the Earth.

There is NO FORCE 'pulling objects down to Earth's surface'! Birds, insects and balloons prove that. You cannot look at an object on Earth, and say there must be something 'holding' it to the surface, simply because it is ON the surface!!

The 'round Earth' theory requires a 'force' to hold all objects to a ball, and without a 'force', the ball Earth theory fails to work. You cannot explain a ball holding objects to it, unless there is some 'force' in play, 'holding' everything to the huge spheroid that is zipping randomly through an infinite universe.

After you have a non-existent BALL planet, you need a non-existent FORCE, to glue all the objects, oceans, and atmosphere to the ball, and make up excuses about why it doesn't work, doesn't work like any other force, to support your ball planet argument/

When people point out the problems in your theory, you cannot resolve them, so you try to disparage their character, instead of addressing the issues.

That is seriously funny. I hope you are satire and not seriously this mentally ill. Flat earthers literally make this up. Nothing you said is valid, pure ignorant spew.

Planes don't fly over a sphere, they'd always have to adjust for curvature in all flights, and we know they don't adjust at all, for any supposed 'curvature'.

Yeah, this has been debunked for ages. Planes are constantly in a fight with gravity and travel level to the surface and gravity. The earth is huge, LMFAO @ saying they should have to adjust for curvature. Gravity and momentum does that for them, dumbass.

Still waiting for a single person to name the logical fallacy of the drake equation and explain what law of logic has been violated? What a failure of a thread, can't even stay on topic because your topic is bull#.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: TzarChasm

I tend to question intelligent life on this planet when turbo posts

Posts like yours leave no question about it!

heh... why because I give you legit answers you simply don't understand?

simple concepts like lift... are beyond your capacity to grasp... and you ignore anything and everything that shows your nonsense to be absolute idiocy... most of us just gave up explaining these things to you...

its like talking to a child... except they would understand IF that was the case...

have fun people

Lift is the force used by birds to achieve flight within air, which is not opposed by any force within Earth, that supposedly pulls objects down to Earth's surface. Which means no force exists within Earth, pulling objects down, or resisting any object from leaving Earth's surface, only the mass and density of the object keeps them on the surface all the time, except objects with less mass and density using a force to lift above the surface. Only when they stop using that force, will they fall to the surface, like all objects within air. Even birds and insects have more mass and density than the air, so they will fall in air without using force to fly above the surface.

This does not require lame excuses, conflicting claims, like your side. It all fits perfectly, because it is true. False claims need excuses, twisted arguments, conflicting claims, and inevitably, they all fail miserably, in the end.

This sounds utterly delusional to me and wrong.

Here’s the thing. I believe/think you’re arguing that air is the controlling factor? Maybe? The post is incoherent to the point I’m having to guess a little bit...

There is some validity to removing air resistance from flight creating a huge leap in capabilities. But that would mean you have to create a bubble inside know atmospheric space that creates a zero drag environment. To my knowledge - that hasn’t been done. Even then you’d likely have to overcome G force.

Long/short I see this as a ranting. Not conclusive proof or understanding. Maybe another member can tell me how I’m wrong.

The only factor is our environment, which is not anything like they claim, and most accept as true, that's the first problem here.

Impressive claim, but you need an alternative explanation and haven’t provided anything resembling one. Why don’t you educate us on how the environment factors into gravity and flight.

Planes don't fly over a sphere, they'd always have to adjust for curvature in all flights, and we know they don't adjust at all, for any supposed 'curvature'.

Why would they adjust for curvature when they’re using an altimeter To determine distance from the plane to the ground? That’s what’s important, maintaining altitude. Furthermore, the atmosphere through which the planes traverse is held in place via gravity and the planes follow the flight path that gives them the fastest route with least layovers and refueling stops. What forces are at play in your flat earth scenario and why is earth the only
Flat planet we’ve ever seen?

What would prove Earth is a sphere, was a ship vanishing over the curvature, which was proven a false claim, and nothing else proves their claim, either.

No. Just no.

originally posted by: Barcs
Still waiting for a single person to name the logical fallacy of the drake equation and explain what law of logic has been violated? What a failure of a thread, can't even stay on topic because your topic is bull#.

It’s like when they claim the earth is flat because nobody can fly over Antarctica because somehow they managed to survive to adulthood without understanding the geography of the earths southern Hemisphere or specific laws that prohibit commercial aircraft from flying anywhere that more than 100 miles from an airport where they
Can make an emergency landing. That is absolutely impossible to accomplish if trying
To fly across Antarctica. Not
Because of magic ice walls!

originally posted by: Barcs
Still waiting for a single person to name the logical fallacy of the drake equation and explain what law of logic has been violated? What a failure of a thread, can't even stay on topic because your topic is bull#.

It has been said multiple times throughout the thread. The major flaw of the Drake equation is that it does not factor intelligence, and assumes that all was created by random chance. The abundance of meticulous physical and chemical laws that have been perpetuating since the beginning of known history indicate that there was an intelligent being that put these laws in order.

You have to deny the obvious and most fundamental aspects of physics to believe the precepts of the Drake equation.

a reply to: cooperton

STOP LYING.

Not factoring in your unfalsifiable untestable presupposition in a PROBABILITY THEORY is not a fallacy or violation of the laws of logic. Again, I specifically said name the fallacy or law of logic that was violated. You can't do it because you guys are full of crap and keep repeating your silly assumptions.