Is he serious?

the problem with trying to reason with fat earth believers is they constantly ignore both reality and the indisputable facts.

How can a reasonable debate be had when one such as Sandokhan makes these statements:-


"that alone proves that the Sun can't be more than few hundreds of years old."

OR

"Venus can't be more than a few thousands of years old"


Where does one start to try and reason with someone who chooses to believe such things?

I have science on my side. You got nothing.

Go ahead and solve the faint young sun paradox. There is also the martian faint sun paradox which is much worse for the RE.

No RE astrophysicist has been able to solve the faint young sun paradox.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290

If billions of years were true, the sun would have been much fainter in the past. However, there is no evidence that the sun was fainter at any time in the earth's history. Astronomers call this the faint young sun paradox.

Of course, there is a way out of this quandary: to accept that the Sun is a very, very young star and that it can't be a nuclear furnace.

I have science on my side. You got nothing.

Go ahead and solve the faint young sun paradox. There is also the martian faint sun paradox which is much worse for the RE.

No RE astrophysicist has been able to solve the faint young sun paradox.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290

If billions of years were true, the sun would have been much fainter in the past. However, there is no evidence that the sun was fainter at any time in the earth's history. Astronomers call this the faint young sun paradox.

Of course, there is a way out of this quandary: to accept that the Sun is a very, very young star and that it can't be a nuclear furnace.

Actual real science gives the age of the Solar system at around 4.5 plus billion years so I’m not sure what science you are referring to.

Science relies on evidence and you have none. The written history of Europe goes back over 2000 years while for Asia Minor it’s far older at over 3000 years which makes your notion of a sun a few hundred years old as being more than a bit crazy.

You do realise what you propose is totally mad. There is no other word for it. Your position has no means of forming any kind of rational debate as it’s so bizarre in the extreme.

Actual real science gives the age of the Solar system at around 4.5 plus billion years so I’m not sure what science you are referring to.

Not unless you can solve the faint young sun paradox. Your figure is a hypothetical estimate made by scientists who ignore the faint young sun paradox.

Since the faint young sun paradox has not been solved, you'd be lucky to get 9,000 years for the age of the Sun (age of comet Halley).

Actual real science gives the age of the Solar system at around 4.5 plus billion years so I’m not sure what science you are referring to.

Not unless you can solve the faint young sun paradox. Your figure is a hypothetical estimate made by scientists who ignore the faint young sun paradox.

Since the faint young sun paradox has not been solved, you'd be lucky to get 9,000 years for the age of the Sun (age of comet Halley).

Do t be silly your the one that has to show how the sun is hundreds of years old. I need to prove nothing the onus is on you.

In reality you can’t prove anything as your claims are barking mad.

Quote from: sandokhan on April 12, 2024, 05:55:02 AM

Actual real science gives the age of the Solar system at around 4.5 plus billion years so I’m not sure what science you are referring to.

Not unless you can solve the faint young sun paradox. Your figure is a hypothetical estimate made by scientists who ignore the faint young sun paradox.

Since the faint young sun paradox has not been solved, you'd be lucky to get 9,000 years for the age of the Sun (age of comet Halley).

Do t be silly your the one that has to show how the sun is hundreds of years old.

Sure thing.

Here is the faint young sun paradox:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290

If billions of years were true, the sun would have been much fainter in the past. However, there is no evidence that the sun was fainter at any time in the earth's history. Astronomers call this the faint young sun paradox.

We find ourselves right at the beginning of the main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, when no fluctuations in luminosity could have taken place.

The age of the Solar System must be less than the estimated upper age of comets.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1962PASP...74..106V/0000107.000.html]1962PASP...74..106V

PAGE 107: Halley's comet, for example, could not exist as a comet for more than 120 revolutions.

120 x 75 = 9000 years

Quote from: Timeisup on April 12, 2024, 06:03:46 AM

Quote from: sandokhan on April 12, 2024, 05:55:02 AM

Actual real science gives the age of the Solar system at around 4.5 plus billion years so I’m not sure what science you are referring to.

Not unless you can solve the faint young sun paradox. Your figure is a hypothetical estimate made by scientists who ignore the faint young sun paradox.

Since the faint young sun paradox has not been solved, you'd be lucky to get 9,000 years for the age of the Sun (age of comet Halley).

Do t be silly your the one that has to show how the sun is hundreds of years old.

Sure thing.

Here is the faint young sun paradox:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290

If billions of years were true, the sun would have been much fainter in the past. However, there is no evidence that the sun was fainter at any time in the earth's history. Astronomers call this the faint young sun paradox.

We find ourselves right at the beginning of the main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, when no fluctuations in luminosity could have taken place.

The age of the Solar System must be less than the estimated upper age of comets.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1962PASP...74..106V/0000107.000.html]1962PASP...74..106V

PAGE 107: Halley's comet, for example, could not exist as a comet for more than 120 revolutions.

120 x 75 = 9000 years

More irrelevant madness.

There are trees on earth that are over a thousand years old!

How did they grow without a sun.

Do you not realise just how totally crazy you are.

You know nothing about the sun as you yourself have no means to study it.

Dendrochronology is a seriously flawed endeavor.

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=icc_proceedings

https://q-mag.org/gunnar-heinsohn-archaeological-strata-vs-tree-rings-proposal-for-an-experiment.html

https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2014/09/02/catastrophic-dendrochronology/

https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2014/09/06/dendrochronology-disastrous-data/

https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/a-carbon-14-chronology/



For you, to even consider this pseudoscience as an argument, is ludicrous.

The most questionable assumption in dendrochronology is the rate of ring formation. General principles of biology and climate suggest that trees add only one ring each year. Individual bristlecone pines, which grow very slowly in arid, high altitude areas of western North America, will sometimes skip a year of growth. This might make a tree appear younger than it really is, but dendrochronologists fill in the missing information by comparing rings from other trees.

However, trees would appear too old if they grew more than one ring per year. Most dendrochronologists, drawing on an influential study by LaMarche and Harlan (1973), believe that bristlecone pines do indeed add only one ring per year. Yet not all scientists accept this study. According to Harold Gladwin (1978), the growth patterns of the bristlecone trees are too erratic for dating. Lammerts (1983) found extra rings after studying the development of bristlecone saplings. He suggested that the existing chronology should be compressed from 7,100 to 5,600 years.

Other problems relate to the analysis of growth-ring patterns. Baillie warns:

As with conventional jig-saws, some people are better at pattern recognition than others and, if the analogy is not too brutal, there are those who recognise the problems, and those who might try to force the pieces together. It has to be remembered that there is only one correct pattern: each tree has grown only once and ultimately its ring pattern can only fit at one place in time. Simply because two pieces look alike does not necessarily mean that they fit together (1982, p. 23).

Computers can provide an important tool for some of this analysis. But researchers must still judge the statistical significance of an apparent match. Also, they must consider variables like local climate and aging, which affect the width of the rings.

Come on Timeisup, unshackle yourself from the bounds of science and reality.
Let your imagination fly
No nuclear decay, no fusion reactions. No rules.
No gravity. No space.
Embrace the little terrarium we apparently are trapped within. Where there's no directional forces yet everything magically behaves as if there , but there isn't.
Where flat planes have visual horizons.
Where ships and aeroplanes travel in great arcs to fool the public, though they could fly in straight lines when nobody's watching

I propose the sun is reborn every morning, otherwise it would run out of gas.
Or maybe there's two suns, there must be, cause once I was in China watching the sun set while my wife was watching the sun rise in Maine. Yes, that's it two suns.

Too ridiculous.
Ask Sandy to explain Coriolis force south of the equator and he will run.

Dendrochronology is a seriously flawed endeavor.

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=icc_proceedings

https://q-mag.org/gunnar-heinsohn-archaeological-strata-vs-tree-rings-proposal-for-an-experiment.html

https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2014/09/02/catastrophic-dendrochronology/

https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2014/09/06/dendrochronology-disastrous-data/

https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/a-carbon-14-chronology/



For you, to even consider this pseudoscience as an argument, is ludicrous.

The most questionable assumption in dendrochronology is the rate of ring formation. General principles of biology and climate suggest that trees add only one ring each year. Individual bristlecone pines, which grow very slowly in arid, high altitude areas of western North America, will sometimes skip a year of growth. This might make a tree appear younger than it really is, but dendrochronologists fill in the missing information by comparing rings from other trees.

However, trees would appear too old if they grew more than one ring per year. Most dendrochronologists, drawing on an influential study by LaMarche and Harlan (1973), believe that bristlecone pines do indeed add only one ring per year. Yet not all scientists accept this study. According to Harold Gladwin (1978), the growth patterns of the bristlecone trees are too erratic for dating. Lammerts (1983) found extra rings after studying the development of bristlecone saplings. He suggested that the existing chronology should be compressed from 7,100 to 5,600 years.

Other problems relate to the analysis of growth-ring patterns. Baillie warns:

As with conventional jig-saws, some people are better at pattern recognition than others and, if the analogy is not too brutal, there are those who recognise the problems, and those who might try to force the pieces together. It has to be remembered that there is only one correct pattern: each tree has grown only once and ultimately its ring pattern can only fit at one place in time. Simply because two pieces look alike does not necessarily mean that they fit together (1982, p. 23).

Computers can provide an important tool for some of this analysis. But researchers must still judge the statistical significance of an apparent match. Also, they must consider variables like local climate and aging, which affect the width of the rings.

It’s you that’s flawed not how trees grow.
Trees despite the madness you give out produce annual rings. All you need do is bloody well count them.
As I said before you are totally mad claiming everything that conflicts with your own madness as being flawed.
Saying the sun is just a couple of hundred years just demonstrates the depth of your own insanity.

You can't just read the rings, read the references on the difficulties and the issues involved.

You will really need to take some aspirin now. Absolute proof that Sirius is orbiting at a distance of less than 50 km from the surface of the Earth (FET):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92401.msg2420848#msg2420848

You can't just read the rings, read the references on the difficulties and the issues involved.

You will really need to take some aspirin now. Absolute proof that Sirius is orbiting at a distance of less than 50 km from the surface of the Earth (FET):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92401.msg2420848#msg2420848

You need more than aspirin to cure what you have.

Trees produce growth rings.
Are you disputing basic biology?

Is there no bottom to your madness?

All what you say just reinforces your madness. There is no point trying to address the utter stupidity you keep coming out with as it is pure 100% nonsense..

You can't just read the rings, read the references on the difficulties and the issues involved.

You will really need to take some aspirin now. Absolute proof that Sirius is orbiting at a distance of less than 50 km from the surface of the Earth (FET):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92401.msg2420848#msg2420848

Funny.  A quick a dirty measurement of the distance of the moon between observes places the moon farther out…

Measuring the Distance To The Moon Using Only A Smartphone Camera

Right. How was the measurement done? What method was used? Please explain to your readers. Light is a variable, not a constant, the barrier constituted by the ether slows down its speed considerably. So do explain what method was used.

Right. How was the measurement done? What method was used? Please explain to your readers. Light is a variable, not a constant, the barrier constituted by the ether slows down its speed considerably. So do explain what method was used.

Stop making shit up. Light speed is constant in a vacuum. Proven over and over. Starting with Michelson and Morely.
No ether effects except brain damage from breathing to much ether.

Right. How was the measurement done? What method was used? Please explain to your readers. Light is a variable, not a constant, the barrier constituted by the ether slows down its speed considerably. So do explain what method was used.

You are a crackpot. From my home office window where I’m  currently sitting I have a view of a castle that that had sat there on its rock  in various forms since the Iron Age, though the oldest part I can see dates from the late 900s making it well older than, according to you, the sun!

How on earth you can keep churning out such crap only demonstrates your gross  insanity.

If the calculation (concerning the distance to the Moon) was performed using Kepler's fake laws and the heliocentric parallax, then it was debunked right here:

Here is a thread with exactly that type of calculation, where it is proven it is false:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92292.msg2418807#msg2418807


Stop making shit up. Light speed is constant in a vacuum. Proven over and over. Starting with Michelson and Morely.

Each ring laser interferometer displays faster than light speed (c + v term). Proven by the Kassner effect. You've never heard of the Kassner effect have you?

Read about it right here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2234871#msg2234871 (two consecutive messages)

It is also called the time gap discontinuity paradox.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220511031521/http://www.espenhaug.com/SagnacEffectFavorsAbsolute.pdf

Dr. Gianfranco Spavieri

In both the outward and return paths, the one-way speed is c (in agreement with Einstein’s second postulate) if the length L of the outward path covered by the signal is reduced to L(1 - 2v/c) < L in Eq. (3).

CORIOLIS EFFECT = a path measuring L(1 - 2v/c), a comparison of two separate/different segments

SAGNAC EFFECT = a path measuring L, a comparison of two continuous loops

Dr. Stephan J.G. Gift

"Thus regarding the frame on the rotating disc he stated, “the speed of light is c everywhere except at the point on the circle where we put the time gap. The position of this point is arbitrary but there must inevitably be such a point.” "

A time gap means that we are no longer dealing with TWO CONTINUOUS LOOPS, as required by the definition of the SAGNAC EFFECT. Having compared two separate segments, only the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula will be derived.

"He concluded by acknowledging that “Einstein synchronization fails when performed along a path around a full circle” i.e. on a closed path on the rotating disc."

It has to fail on a closed path since the Einstein synchronization deals only with subluminal speeds, while the full closed path (two continuous loops) requires the use of superluminal speeds (c+v) for the SAGNAC EFFECT.


The Michelson-Morley experiment is a Sagnac interferometer with zero area.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2041450#msg2041450

Dr. Patrick Cornille (Essays on the Formal Aspects of Electromagnetic Theory, pg. 141):



Topological consideration of the MMX:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044039#msg2044039


Christoph Pfister, one of Swizterland's greatest historians, has investigated each castle, each cathedral, each document pertaining to the medieval age and has concluded that all of them were constructed during the 18th century.

If I can prove to you that both Pompeii and Herculaneum were cities in full activity in the 18th century, will you then believe me?

Sure thing.

Here is the faint young sun paradox:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290

If billions of years were true, the sun would have been much fainter in the past. However, there is no evidence that the sun was fainter at any time in the earth's history. Astronomers call this the faint young sun paradox.

We find ourselves right at the beginning of the main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, when no fluctuations in luminosity could have taken place.

The age of the Solar System must be less than the estimated upper age of comets.

There is no genuine paradox, just you being an uneducated pleb making up false paradoxes out of sheer ignorance.

Both earth and sun are 5 billions years old, we know this thanks to carbon dating. Carbon dating is based off the proven and measurable radioactive half-life.

-Earliest human writing is less than 6000 years old
-Ability to measure sunlight power is less than 150 years old
-Ability to measure sunlight power accurately is less than 50 years old (space telescope bypassing atmosphere fluctuations)

Conclusion human can at best measure the difference in sunlight power over a few decades, out of 5 billions years. No reasonable conclusion could be drawn over such a short time. It would be like trying to predict the weather in millions years from now based off the difference between Monday and Tuesday.

I suppose flat earthers will just chose to completely ignore my post because that's what they do whenever they are slammed with common sense, just pretend it didn't happen.

Yes, you live the Sagnac Effect. Used in typical laser ring gyros. You have the partial equation there, where the speed of light is c, a constant in the equations. Sadly you don't comprehend special or general relativity.
Coriolis has nothing to do with any of that crap. It's the deflection of objects traveling in a rotating frame of reference. A mechanical dynamics phenomenon, easily shown as the reason low pressure systems spin one way north of the equator and the opposite direction south of the equator. A feature of reality your childish FE model can't explain.

cobra, you really need to read up on the dating methods. Here is the best place to start:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1640735#msg1640735

A mechanical dynamics phenomenon, easily shown as the reason low pressure systems spin one way north of the equator and the opposite direction south of the equator. A feature of reality your childish FE model can't explain.

What is this, flat earth debate 101? I dealt with such matters many years ago. The Coriolis effect is caused by the rotation of the ether field above the surface of the Earth. Read up on ether magnetism:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759332#msg759332

North Pole - Center - South Pole, different spin in either semiplane. Quite simple.

cobra, you really need to read up on the dating methods. Here is the best place to start:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1640735#msg1640735

A mechanical dynamics phenomenon, easily shown as the reason low pressure systems spin one way north of the equator and the opposite direction south of the equator. A feature of reality your childish FE model can't explain.

What is this, flat earth debate 101? I dealt with such matters many years ago. The Coriolis effect is caused by the rotation of the ether field above the surface of the Earth. Read up on ether magnetism:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759332#msg759332

North Pole - Center - South Pole, different spin in either semiplane. Quite simple.

Is there no end to your fictions?
You constantly run away from confronting the consequences of the claims you make. Rather than addressing these claims you spin ever more fictions such is your dishonesty and madness.

You said the sun is a few hundred year old a statement that is so beyond madness that it calls into question your very sanity though that had been in doubt for some time. By virtue if that statement you have just confirmed it.

Of course the bigger issue is why do people want to reject main stream science that has plenty supporting evidence and replace it with meaningless nonsense that has no evidence whatsoever.

The age of the sun and the planets including our own is beyond any doubt with evidence from various sources all confirming a similar age, an age which is vastly different from the few hundred years offered by Sandokhan.

This need to go out on a limb reject main stream science with its validated evidence and believe in what is pure nonsense makes no sense. Flat earthers like to call it free thinking which is ironic as if there was any real critical thinking involved they would not believe in the evidence free rubbish they do.

cobra, you really need to read up on the dating methods. Here is the best place to start:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1640735#msg1640735

A mechanical dynamics phenomenon, easily shown as the reason low pressure systems spin one way north of the equator and the opposite direction south of the equator. A feature of reality your childish FE model can't explain.

What is this, flat earth debate 101? I dealt with such matters many years ago. The Coriolis effect is caused by the rotation of the ether field above the surface of the Earth. Read up on ether magnetism:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759332#msg759332

North Pole - Center - South Pole, different spin in either semiplane. Quite simple.

He quotes himself!

The irony which is no doubt lost on Sandokhan is the very book he quotes totally rubbishes his very own notion that the sun is a couple hundreds years old!!!

Sandokhan really is a mixed up confused individual who just makes up and says any old crap without really thinking about it.

Do you still believe the sun is only a couple of hundred years old as your own quoted book disagree with you!

Yeah Sandhokan is prone to exaggeration, well gross exaggeration. I think he out thinks himself sometimes, using references that contradict his claims.
The whole flat earth thing is conspiracy theory on acid, driven by a childish notion that somebody, "they", are in control.
It's perhaps too frightening to consider that nobody is in control. Not NASA, not the imaginary Illuminati, certainly not the Masons or any other group or religious deity. No Cabal out there making decisions for us. Scary right?
That's the thought that drives conspiracy theories.

Yeah Sandhokan is prone to exaggeration, well gross exaggeration. I think he out thinks himself sometimes, using references that contradict his claims.
The whole flat earth thing is conspiracy theory on acid, driven by a childish notion that somebody, "they", are in control.
It's perhaps too frightening to consider that nobody is in control. Not NASA, not the imaginary Illuminati, certainly not the Masons or any other group or religious deity. No Cabal out there making decisions for us. Scary right?
That's the thought that drives conspiracy theories.

Probe to exaggeration!!!! You think???
More like prone to being totally barking mad.
Anyone who claims our sun is a few hundred years old is several sandwiches short of a picnic at best. Though to believe in the flat earth madness is a prerequisite.

Quote from: Cameron 1964 on April 13, 2024, 06:23:20 AM

Yeah Sandhokan is prone to exaggeration, well gross exaggeration. I think he out thinks himself sometimes, using references that contradict his claims.
The whole flat earth thing is conspiracy theory on acid, driven by a childish notion that somebody, "they", are in control.
It's perhaps too frightening to consider that nobody is in control. Not NASA, not the imaginary Illuminati, certainly not the Masons or any other group or religious deity. No Cabal out there making decisions for us. Scary right?
That's the thought that drives conspiracy theories.

Probe to exaggeration!!!! You think???
More like prone to being totally barking mad.
Anyone who claims our sun is a few hundred years old is several sandwiches short of a picnic at best. Though to believe in the flat earth madness is a prerequisite.

The only flat earth proof visible on this forum, is all flat earthers are barking mad. All of them. Each and every one of them. They should be rounded up and thrown in an asylum for the mentally ill.

Seriously, would you want one of these flat earthers in your life in any capacity? If one of your oldest friends came out they were a flat earther and couldn't shut the fuck up about it, would you not feel pity for them, be extremely embarassed, and persuade them to seek professional help? Would you not talk them into going and getting a brain scan for an undiagnosed brain injury or brain tumor? Would you not query what illegal drugs or mental health medication they might already be on?

I would.

What these raving lunatics say, is not normal thinking. It could also hint at other abnormal thinking or behaviours, they prefer to keep hidden.

They are also each peddling a dangerous scam, because by refuting science, most of them also refute medical science. Most of these clowns are unvaccinated for anything.

They are all unemployable and a drain on society. In fact, flat earthers are a cancer of society. They are modern day leppers.

It's crazy that you are so vitriolic about flat earthers not being able to shut the fuck up about it, on a forum for flat earthers, where you have more than one acct that you use to make angry posts about flat earthers not shutting the fuck up about it.

It's crazy that you are so vitriolic about flat earthers not being able to shut the fuck up about it, on a forum for flat earthers, where you have more than one acct that you use to make angry posts about flat earthers not shutting the fuck up about it.

It's crazy you condone people being sick in the head.

I have more than one account, do I? Feel free to tell and prove to us all you aren't spaced out all the time as your posts suggest.

There's no anger in my post at all. I just dialled up an inherent truth that flat earthers think they are absolved of social responsibility. Primitive man would leave the sick to die and move on, but in today's world of civil libertarians, we pander to the sick in the head and pretend they are ok, all the while being a heavy drain on the herd.

I was including all social media platforms flat earthers like to stand on their soap boxes and spread their word. Each one of them, they can't shut the fuck up about it like religious zealots.

Remember, Galileo spent his last 9 years of life under house arrest for daring to say the ball Earth rotated around the sun. It was already widely accepted even then, that earth was a globe. So, flat earthers, would want to drag the world back centuries before even that time.

Take the worst con artists in the world you can think of, the Belle Gibsons, and flat earth preachers are right up there causing just as much damage. They are con artists by being media influencers, hiding behind the "truth" movement where nothing is off the table and fact checking is no longer important.

If flat earthers are too precious to hear the hard truth, why are non believers like me allowed to even be here? Why is this entire forum not closed off only to flat earth die hards? All debates here arrive at the same inescapable conclusion - our earth is s globe orbiting the sun.

The supremely damaging and evil message cloaked behind the "innocent" flat earth truther facade, is that people should not, and cannot, trust any authority, experts, official narratives, or basically their fellow man.

It's crazy that you are so vitriolic about flat earthers not being able to shut the fuck up about it, on a forum for flat earthers, where you have more than one acct that you use to make angry posts about flat earthers not shutting the fuck up about it.

What's crazy is when people resort to telling blatant lies like  turbonium2 when they say the public can't buy telescopes.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Reflector-Newtonian-Dobsonian/ci/3390

Thats what crazy is.

OR

When your flat earth buddy claims the sun is only a few hundred years old. If thats not a barking mad statement I don't know what is.

I live in a city founded over 1300 years ago with a written recorded history going back over 1000 years. I look out onto a castle that has its origins back in the Iron Age over 3000 years ago!

We live in an age when ignoring the truth and telling lies have become the norm. The behaviour of our politicians and other media types clearly demonstrate this. It's rife on this site where people claim all sorts of bullshit and pretend it's true because they believe it. It's a sign of just how sick our society is.

Do you think telling blatant lies should go unchallenged?

You are free to debate all you like, but you and your alt just spam insults. I warned you yesterday, so you're on notice. Try to attack the argument and not the person making the argument.