1

Flat Earth General / Re: Ethically Sourcing Troling

« on: Today at 01:42:05 AM »

If you look at all the flat earthers, the problem that eventually sold each of them that the earth was flat, and started their journey down the rabbit hole, is no matter how hard they tried, they couldn't prove to themselves the earth curves and measure that curvature.

No, it really isn't.
There are plenty of ways they can prove to themselves Earth can curve.
If they put in a tiny bit of effort they would be able to.

They have a much deeper need for Earth to be flat.
It could be that they accept their religion indicates Earth is flat and they don't want their religion to be wrong.
It could be that they were conned into it and don't want to admit it.
It could be that they are paranoid and are rejecting what they have been taught.
It could be that they simply can't handle reality and need to escape into a fantasy.

It certainly isn't because they can't prove to themselves Earth curves or they don't know how to measure it.
This is obvious from how many things that have been provided to them which would allow them to do that which they just reject.

2

Flat Earth General / Re: Ethically Sourcing Troling

« on: May 11, 2025, 04:16:13 AM »

I'll say it again.

Saying the same refuted crap again doesn't make it true.
You are basically saying all surveyors are wrong, because they aren't using a ruler and a level.

3

Flat Earth General / Re: Are Penguins Bio-Engineered?

« on: May 11, 2025, 04:14:57 AM »

The word penguin has an interesting etymology.

Yes, first used to describe a different bird, the great auk.
Then later when Europeans came across what we now know of as penguins, they called them that due to their similarities.

Do they really take us for such fools as they think we wouldn't figure it out?

Well you fail to join the dots with the etymology, you seem to think all penguins are in Antarctica, and ignore a key part of evolution.
So if someone was making a conspiracy they likely would think you are such a fool you wouldn't figure it out.

4

Flat Earth General / Re: Sandokhan's statement about the Sun rising in the west.

« on: May 11, 2025, 04:10:04 AM »

Just what do you mean by changing the axis of tilt?
If you mean taking Earth and flipping it around, that will still have the sun rise in the east and set in the west, but now the south pole star will be Polaris and the southern cross will point to the north.

The bigger issue is that it doesn't matter what model you use, none predict such a thing happening so it doesn't prove or disprove any.

Even your idea of the stars continuing to rise in the east while the sun rises in the west still doesn't prove the shape of Earth.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: They've lied to the world about the stars

« on: May 10, 2025, 04:05:20 PM »

I’m sure they’d have many videos of Saturn through that same telescope by now

And I don't give a damn if you are sure.
You have no basis for it.
If you think they would, then provide these many videos.
Otherwise, you are just appealing to your hopes and dreams.

But it does make perfect sense that they’ve never shown us any videos or images taken through this greatest ever telescope, far superior to what they had then!

Why?
Just think about your BS line of reasoning.
Why would it make a difference at all?

Again, you are appealing to your hopes and dreams.

This issue could easily be settled forever

Yet you refuse to.
Because you want to appeal to your wilful ignorance to pretend people are lying.

Again, nothing is stopping you from buying your own telescope vastly superior to what they had, and putting in a location with a good atmosphere to prevent distortion, and filming Saturn for ages.

Only you would think their claims are valid and true, without any valid evidence.

I'm making no statement about their claims.
I am rejecting YOUR claims.

We’ve already seen what Saturn looks like

Through a turbulent atmosphere, distorting the view; typically with cheap crappy telescopes or just a camera, or through a crappy iphone camera which kept trying to autofocus; makign it incomparable to what they saw and entirely useless for proving they lied.

You have nothing to show they lied.
And you need to appeal to such a convoluted fantasy to pretend your complete absence of reasoning makes sense.

They said it wasn’t moving at all whenever they saw it for many years, studying it.

WHERE?
You have repeated this claim many times, but are yet to prove it.
Your only attempt to do so to date in any serious way was shown to be you lying to everyone.

That’s the very first thing that I’ve seen, and everyone else has seen, looking at Saturn or seeing it on videos - it’s always in motion, or appears to be in motion, but is certainly never seen as motionless at all.

It appears like an object through a heat haze.
That is not the object itself being in motion.

Their whole story is of Saturn being motionless

You mean YOUR story of them claiming to see it motionless?
Your story which you can't substantiate at all?

Yet you want to pretend other people are liars.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo

« on: May 10, 2025, 03:58:11 PM »

How could you possibly see over ANY surface beyond a thousand miles away from you?

By nothing blocking the view.
Again, what is stopping it?

We cannot see over the rooftop of a highrise building, which is flat of course.

If we are below it, no, because the building blocks the view.
But if we are above it, we can.

It would keep on appearing to rise up, you think it’d all be seen over it, so how would you ever see over it when such a height of it is reached in the distance?

Again, do you understand the difference between the physical height and the angular position?
The angular position rises (at a decreasing rate).
That is NOT the physical position rising.
You never reach a point where that surface that is below you goes above you to block the view.

even with any instruments, because they act on the same viewing angles we do and we see them from by eye.

Except as repeatedly demonstrated the angular resolution of these different instruments is different.
And the distance to the horizon is independent of it.
Clearly showing that is NOT the cause of the horizon.

And as shown, the angle for 5 to 10 km is more than for 4 to 5 km.
So why can we see the 4 to 5, but not 5 to 10?

What could you see over a flat surface, by eye or instrument, that stretches out for thousands of miles, while less and less rising upward to see, means there is less and less surface to BE seen by us!

And the better instruments, magnifying that angle, see more and more.

The angle makes the surface impossible to see over it all from our position.

How?
Stop just asserting BS.

That’s the only view you talk about though, and it’s nonsense.

No, I also talk about other views.
You instead take that very same view and move it to a different location to pretend it is a different view to pretend it magically shows Earth is flat; while ignoring the horizon is blocking your view.

i.e. you are standing at the centre of the purple circle:


The view you are pretending to appeal to is the view along the grey line.
But instead, you move the person to the centre of the blue circle and you end up with the blue circle being your view.
You are NOT viewing the grey line.
It is being blocked from view by the horizon.

If you want that view, you need to get very far away from Earth.
And then you get views like this:
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Certainly looks round. So you dismiss it as fake.

We see the horizon as a flat and horizontal line across the surface, in all directions.

We see it as a circle.

Any curve would be seen along that horizon, in all directions seen.

HOW?
Instead of just asserting the same pathetic BS, explain just how it would be seen.

Remember, the horizon, being the same distance away in all directions is the same angle of dip in all directions.

You do realize that we can measure for curved or flat surfaces

You do realise we can and have measured that Earth is round, right?

In fact, one way you easily can is measuring the angle of dip to the horizon from a known altitude.
You know, the very thing you have repeatedly fled from?

If Earth were a ball, we’d never see horizons rising up when we rise above the ball Earth.

You have already admitted that is a lie, that they do still rise up.

They only CAN form a horizon if flat enough at close distance.

Wrong again.
I can pick up a basketball and easily see the horizon on it.
But with a table, the only horizon I can see is the edge.

Again, flat surface do not produce horizons, curved surface do.

Seeing the horizon directly across from us about 200 miles away

Is a lie you are yet to substantiate.
The photos you appealed to as evidence of this lie showed you were lying and the horizon is in fact BELOW eye level.
But you ignore that.

Our instruments can only measure for level as a flat and horizontal path or line, over the length of the instruments or distance cast from it, with laser levels.

And importantly, with a certain level of uncertainty, allowing it to be flat or curved following the curvature of Earth.

You are yet to provide a single example of a device capable of measuring for "flat and level" which is capable of measuring the curve.

But again, this has nothing to do with the horizon.
Stop repeating the same crap.
Stop deflecting with the same pathetic crap.
Especially now when that crap shows you are a lying POS.


Again, if you want to pretend Earth is flat, EXPLAIN THE HORIZON!
Something which clearly shows Earth is round.
Something which every time you see it is you seeing the curve.

What causes the horizon in your FE fantasy?
How does this obstruct the view to the bottom of objects beyond the horizon when we can still easily resolve them (showing it isn't simply perspective making it too small to resolve)?
Why is the horizon this particular distance away, a distance which does not vary with different optics; and why does this distance vary with altitude the way it does (importantly, this variation is non linear, showing again it is not perspective and not simply the angle is too small to resolve. If it was, it would rely upon h/d, and doubling your height would double the distance; and it not being based upon optics shows it isn't just a case of the angle being too small to see as that angle that is too small depends on optics)?
Why is the horizon below eye level, including plenty of cases from high altitude where we can see it is below eye level with an appropriate reference (again showing it isn't a case of the angle being too small to see), and explain why this angle of dip increases with increasing elevation?

Can you answer any of them?
Of course you can't. You can just lie and deflect.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Humphrey's Peak

« on: May 10, 2025, 03:45:56 PM »

That’s not how real forces act.

Instead of just asserting pathetic garbage, why don't you try explaining how it isn't how real forces act?

A force would pull down all the air to the surface, not some of it and not all of it.

And air pressure would push it up.

So if you consider a layer of air, it has the force of the air above pushing it down, it has the force of gravity tyring to move it down, and it has the force from the pressure of the air below pushing it up.
If we start with the air uniform in pressure, then the force above pushing down is countered by the force below pushing up, and the resulting force is just the force of gravity.
This will cause that layer to go down, compressing the layer below, increasing its pressure and making it up push up more.
This will naturally result in a pressure gradient, with air a greater pressure the lower down you are.

This is exactly how real forces behave.
But you can't explain it with your magic.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airplane gyroscopic instruments proves FE made useless long ago.

« on: May 10, 2025, 03:38:41 PM »

Gyroscopes aren’t used for a ball Earth or a drifting above a ball Earth, that’s complete bs.

Your statement certainly is BS.

They aren’t modeled or designed to account for flying over a big ball Earth, in any way at all.

Then what's with the build in righting mechanism that does just that?
It certainly seems like they are designed to account for flying over a large round Earth.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What keeps us on the ground

« on: May 10, 2025, 03:37:01 PM »

All objects exist on Earth

Repeating the same baseless claims, based upon a wilful rejection of evidence does not help you.

A force is needed to put objects upward into air, they don’t go up into air unless by an external force acting on them.

Again, you have had this pathetic BS of yours refuted countless times.
A force is needed to put an object upwards and to the right, but it doesn't fall down and to the left. Instead, it falls down.

You can use a force to pry an object off a cliff face, but it doesn't fall back to the cliff face, instead it falls down.
You can use a force to pry an object downwards from an overhand, and it doesn't fall back up to the overhang, it falls down.

It clearly does not matter at all in what direction a force moved an object.
It doesn't magically cause it to go back to where it came from.

So that complete absence of reason from you is quite clearly pure BS.
The origin of something does not determine what way it goes.

It’s entirely due to greater mass that makes them stay on Earth, in the first place.

No, it doesn't, as that provides absolutely no reason for them to stay on Earth.

A force isn’t required to have all objects on Earth

To have them just sit there on a perfectly motionless Earth with no atmosphere, no.
But if you move them a force is required to accelerate them down.
And a force is clearly there, measurable by a scale where a spring is compressed by that force to produce a measurable reading.
If there was no force it would simply sit on top of the scale without compressing the spring at all and without producing a reading of its weight.

Likewise, there is also a measurable pressure gradient in the atmosphere. If the object has air beneath it (such a table, or something hanging from a string) you then have the problem of that greater air pressure below pushing the object up.
That means it needs a downwards force to counter the upwards force from the air.

All the evidence shows there is a force.

Objects on ground will sink in water, being more dense than water.

Again, density provides no reason.
There is no directionality to it.

And again, this doesn't help with the pressure gradient.
Consider an object of density equal to the surroundings. e.g. something with the same density as water.
Your density should do nothing.
So the only thing acting on it is the pressure gradient which should then push it up.

This pressure gradient kills your delusional BS, so it isn't a surprise that you keep ignoring it at all costs.

Try to address the pressure gradient for once in your life.

10

Flat Earth General / Re: Does compression really make things physically disappear from vision?

« on: May 10, 2025, 03:28:23 PM »

"Does compression really make things physically disappear from vision?"
Yes. Yes it does.

Physically, not just limited resolution.

and every single one of them has a career that depends on knowing what you don't, that the Earth is flat, and perspective works.

You sure do love your lies.
Their career instead depends upon understanding that perspective makes things smaller, not that it magically makes them vanish like you want to claim.
They understand that if you zoom in, you can then see those things which were too small to resolve.
And that if you want to block something from view, you need a horizon from a curve.

That does not rely upon knowing your repeated lie.

Their career depends on making thing level.

Yes, LEVEL. Not flat.
They are different.

Over a small enough scale there is no significant difference.
But over a large enough area, it then depends upon how you are doing it.

I'm here to remind you that if you're questioning this, you're officially departing from your own beliefs.

Again, we aren't rejecting perspective and saying it doesn't exist.
Instead, we are saying it doesn't physically block things from view.

11

Flat Earth General / Re: Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

« on: May 10, 2025, 03:21:12 PM »

And your second animation, despite me telling you a couple of times that this is a straight down beam of light

i.e. the very thing I have repeatedly explains destroys your model.
The very thing you appealed to to pretend the RE model can't work, while it in fact shows YOUR model can't work.

Remember these diagrams I showed you ages ago which you were completely incapable of responding to?


This is what is required to match your claim.
You have the sun a tiny point of light shining down onto the tiny parabola, a parabola which has a radius of 3 miles.
That means someone 4 miles away from the subsolar point will not see the sun.
This means the vast majority of Earth will be in darkness.
The only locations that will see the sun on a given day are a narrow band following the subsolar point, with any location only seeing the sun for no more than a few minutes.

In order to illuminate half of Earth at once, you instead need something more like this:


But that would make the sun cover the entire sky except during sunrise and sunset.
So that clearly doesn't work either.

Instead, to have it match what is actually observed in reality, you need something more like this:

Where for the most part the sun does hit at an angle, magically going through the other parabolas to get there.

One of us understand how the model works, the other is angling it.

And it clearly isn't you, because if you did you would realise that it has no chance of matching reality.

Angled light refracts.

And the important part for that is the angle at the surface.
Not just relative to some magical universal down.

To avoid that refraction, you need to have the light coming from perpendicular to the surface of the dome.

When I wake up, it's to the south of me. When I head to breakfast and for most of the day it's north of me

Which shows a massive problem for your fantasy.
Try drawing out where the sun would need to be over your FE fantasy to have that happen.

But again, this is just a baseless assertion. Are you sure you have your directions right?
I have never seen any part of the sun's path which would not work on a RE.

And that claim of yours certainly doesn't help you as you have done nothing to explain how you get that observation.
Again, you just appeal to vague crap.

Dude, I can predict the sun's path in two different directions.

No, you have drawn 2 crappy images without predicting anything.
Do you understand what prediction is?

Here is an example based upon a RE:
https://www.suncalc.org/
For any time and location, you can predict the direction to the sun.
For any location you can predict the time and direction to the sun for sunrise and sunset.

All based upon math based upon a round Earth.

You have nothing like that.

You've already been told repeatedly why the sun doesn't appear to shrink.

You mean you have repeatedly contradicted yourself, where you make a statement which directly contradicts your own model?

Again, if the distance remains roughly the same, that means it is not circling overhead and close.
It means it is very far away.

And it means you don't have any chance at all of using a changing distance to explain it setting.
That also means it can't just be moving overhead.
If you want it to change angle while keeping the same distance, with it going down, it must be going down.

You can look up Eric Dubay's explanation of sunrise and sunset, or Phuketword's "Should the Sun Appear to Shrink?"

And we can explain why they are wrong.

The sun is a disc pointing straight down, same elevation all day long.

With the distance to it changing, and the angular size changing. And then for a bonus, as it is a disc pointing down, it changes from a circle when viewed directly under it to an ellipse when viewed from the side.

This does not match reality, so it does not help explain how the sun sets.
It just further demonstrates how the FE model is wrong and you refuse to think critically or just can't.

Will Duffy: Curvature does not need to be measurable to exist

And another pathetic lie from you.
Your inability to measure curvature in your bathtub doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Curvature does exist and is measurable, such as the measurable angle of dip to the horizon and how this varies with altitude.
Or the accurate surveying equipment that can and does measure for it.

The sun does shrink

Really?
Because that video doesn't show it.
Instead, it shows the sun remains the same width, clearly showing no shrinkage.
In fact, just look at what he says:
"It is the same size as the previous circle, and it has gotten smaller".
If it is the same size, how did it get smaller?

Atmosphere affects the extend that it shrinks or does not shrink, and it's no a profound shrink in anywhere with atmosphere.

Yet not that long ago you were appealing to a picture of boats shrinking.
Yet again, you are just whatever crap you can think of, with no evidence or justification at all, to pretend your delusional fantasy is true.

For example, the sun always travels in an arc, rising and setting. This is true whether you face north or south. The stars are in distinct constellation patterns whether you are in the northern or southern hemisphere. These are constants.

Yes, "constants" which show the FE fantasy is wrong, because there is no way for that to be possible on a flat Earth with these so close.
The fact they are constant means everyone that can see them is looking at them from the same direction.
So the only way they can appear in such drastically different places relative to Earth's surface is if Earth's surface is at a different orientation, i.e. Earth is round.

then as I've said before

You mean as you have baselessly asserted before.

Again, DISTANCE MATTERS!
The change in position you are appealing to is insignificant compared to the distance to those objects.
So no, you haven't shown any problem.

In order to prove that the Earth does even one of the motions you speak of, have an assistant hold a flashlight perfectly steady, while you set a Kindle to record, then mimic the orbit, rotation, spiral, and wobble you claim is RE theology. And show me the arc that this motion creates.

So to appeal to the arc of the sun, you want the sun fixed in place while Earth moves along the helix; with you completely ignoring the motion of the sun, which when combined with Earth and viewed from the reference frame of the sun, would result in Earth just circling it?

Again, you appeal to dishonest garbage, setting up a pathetic strawman to attack.

My parabola may be stupid

And not only is it so utterly stupid, it entirely fails to work.

12

Flat Earth General / Re: Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

« on: May 10, 2025, 03:03:48 PM »

You're confusing what is taught in school and what people tell you is true, for what actually is.

No, you are confusing what a known lying conman tells you, with what actually is.

Those maps the sailors use are based upon a projection of a sphere.
With the complex trigonometry already done so you can determine a bearing you can follow to reach a destination based upon a straight line.

A sailor heads from 34W 80 N to 32W 85 N

I.e. they use a system to represent positions, based entirely on a sphere.
A system which makes absolutely no sense in your delusional fantasy.

If the Earth was a sphere, a waterproof globe and dry erase markers would be the best tools imaginable.

No, they wouldn't.
You would need a very large globe to get the same resolution as those maps.
That would make it entirely impractical.

In fact, Eric Dubay

I don't care about your lying conmen telling you a bunch of pure BS which just gobble up because you lack the ability to think critically and are desperate to prop up your fantasy so you take anything which does so on faith.

if you were using a globe, it should literally look like a parentheses as you go from an arc north of the equator to south of it.

Why?
Again, you assert pure BS with no justification.

If your proof was anything substantial, I would bother debating it.

More pure BS.

You have been provided plenty which you just ignore, dismiss or outright lie about because it shows your delusional fantasy is wrong.

You, like many Round Earthers, project your own arrogance to Flat Earthers.

No, quite the opposite. You are the one who continually projects your own arrogance onto REers.

You continually spout pure BS as if it must be true, yet you cannot justify it at all.
That is you acting like you know better, with no justification at all.

Actually, the Round Earthers from my experience are so smug that they will never consider that they might be wrong.

Again, quite the opposite.
Plenty of round Earthers consider that possibility.
They are just yet to see anything that shows they are wrong.

Meanwhile, you repeatedly demonstrate that you will never consider that you might be wrong.
e.g. look at your BS about the vanishing point, you never consider the possibility that you could be wrong with the location of the vanishing point relative to the horizon.
Instead you use your arrogance to boldly claim the picture must be fake because it doesn't show what you want it to.

That is YOU being arrogant.
That is YOU refusing to consider the possibility that you are wrong.

Instead, you act like because you have rejected the RE (without reason), you must be right and must know better than all those "fools" still believing the RE.
Even though you cannot justify any of your BS.

submitted it to testing, and had to admit they were wrong.

Except that has never been the case.
You either entirely failed to understand it and attacked a strawman (like you repeatedly do here), or just rejected on nothing more than faith or not liking reality.
This also demonstrates you never really understood and had no real attachment to the RE, so there is no problem with discarding it and it is nothing like admitting you were wrong because you are really just saying what the teacher taught you was wrong.
Meanwhile you have now grown so attached to the FE it is a critical part of your identity and you cannot bring yourself to honestly and rationally question and test it, nor admit it is wrong.

You are yet to provide a single test of the RE which has failed.
While we have provided countless tests of the FE which have failed.

This is the video that I was talking about.

And did you bother watching it?

Your lying cult leaders provides all this crap with no evidence or justification.
It is just a collection of baseless claims; which you take entirely on faith to cling to your delusional fantasy.

You don't need to be one to ask one. I asked a surveyor. He thought the Earth was round, but knew that anywhere on Earth, it appears locally flat.

So he knows Earth is round, but in your extreme arrogance you think you know better.

I will tell you that the whole thing is crap.

And you will just demonstrate a complete lack of understanding.
You are yet to even explain just what you are expecting to see.

The parabola works.

Yet you cannot provide any explanation of how, nor can you address the mountains of issues with it.

Notice how you aren't showing the horizon at all in your useless gif?
Not all the extra reflections?

And the exposure is so bad, we don't really see the light directly, we more see a massive amount of glare.

This is not showing your parabola working.
This is showing a glass dome distorting the sun.

13

Flat Earth General / Re: Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

« on: May 10, 2025, 02:29:15 PM »

The vanishing point lines are not even drawn right.

You keep asserting this, using the same BS circular reasoning.
The vanishing point is drawn in correctly, and it is NOT the horizon.
Just telling everyone it is wrong because it isn't the horizon is just rejecting reality because you don't like it.
It does nothing to magically bring the vanishing point back to the horizon.

Ask any artist and they will tell you that the vanishing point is where parallel lines appear to meet.
They will also tell you it can be in any direction, not just magically tied to the horizon.

e.g. if you are looking up in a city full of skyscrapers with those sky scrapers vertical, the vanishing point is directly above you.

This "photography" is akin to going downstairs from a tall building and taking a shot from lower level, then cutting the building at higher level.

You keep asserting this, but you have no basis for it at all.

Stop just repeating the same pathetic claims.
There are plenty of examples of this, and you can go test it yourself if you had a shred of integrity.

This book might as well be a fairy tale.

Why? Because it shows you are wrong?

Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth

Again you demonstrate a complete lack of critical thinking, where you just blindly accept the lies of your lying cult leader.
It has been shown repeatedly that they do when it is actually needed.

They're called sea charts.

You mean things which use latitude and longitude based on a sphere?
Again, you are asserting pure BS.

Had you watched the video, you'd know this.

Wrong again.
If I had watched the video and just mindlessly accepted the baseless claims of a known lying conman, I would foolishly believe that BS.
But if I used critical thinking I would reject it as the crap it is.

Did you listen to what you just said?

And did you make any attempt to understand it? No.
You just saw one part and decided to focus on that with no understanding at all to pretend reality is wrong.

Doesn't it seem odd to you you that radar, traveling outward in relatively straight wave, dips around a sphere, or climbs it like a hill?

Because I understand things like reflection, diffraction and refraction, no.

e.g. I understand how you can use a mirror to look around a corner.
I understand how radio waves can reflect off the ionosphere to allow you to look around a corner.

it must bounce signals off the atmosphere. Yet these signals magically shut off when wanting to talk to the moon.

And again you demonstrate a complete lack of any form of critical thinking.

Frequency matters.
Angle matters.

We can even see how angles matter when looking at water.
If you are in water and look straight up, you can see out just fine.
But if you look at a much shallower angle, you can't see out and instead the interface between the water and air reflects.

Likewise, we can see how frequency matters with plenty of things.
For example, you can still get a wifi signal, even with a solid wall between you and the wifi router, so you can't see it.
You can even put the router inside a cardboard box, and you still can't see it but do get wifi signal.

But then you can switch it up and put it in a simple faraday cage and the signal is blocked but then you can see it.
Different frequencies interact with different bits of matter in different ways.

If you applied just a tiny bit of critical thinking, you would understand this.
But you don't, because you don't want to. You just want a pathetic excuse to reject reality.

Or... (true to Occam's Razor)

we understand the horizon is Earth physically blocking the view because Earth is round; which also directly explains countless other things, like the sky at night and the sun and the moon and how we see them from various places on Earth, and so on.
We understand the moon landings were real and there isn't a massive global conspiracy.


Occam's razor doesn't help you at all.
The very topic of this thread is a clear example of that.
You have to appeal to so much convoluted BS just to pretend the sun can set in your fantasy.
While the RE has the sun set because Earth blocks it from view.

We are told this radar pitches upward, but since we can't see that, we have to take it on faith.

Or to put it more honestly, you have absolutely no idea how it works, so you just dishonestly appeal to it to pretend it shows Earth is flat.
If Earth was flat, all radar would be "over the horizon radar". There wouldn't be any need for a special separate system.

I don't even take religion on faith.

You take plenty on faith.
Your entire FE belief is on faith or lies of conmen which you have taken on faith.

I respond alot better to honest requests than duplicity.

Except you clearly don't.
You appear to absolutely hate honesty and homeset requests and do whatever you can to avoid them; while you eat up duplicity from your lying cult leader like you love it.

being vertically curved means that I have to sail uphill then downhill.

Except you have had that BS refuted countless times.

Again.

Again, you demonstrate how you happily accept the lies of a known conman with no critical thinking at all.
You demonstrate how your FE belief is based entirely upon faith and a complete lack of any evidence.
You have shown how you reject honest attempts to show that evidence.

Flat Earth is certainly not useless to you.

I am yet to see a single use for it, while the RE works vastly better.

Turns out that it is far more effective to have a radar that can continue quite a ways versus one that has to wrap around a curve.

Radars being easier to make on a FE doesn't mean a FE helps in reality.
Saying FE sounds better doesn't mean it helps with reality.
You may as well just be saying sicknesses don't exist, because it would be a lot better without them; while ignoring the countless people that are sick.
And you can say the same for forest fires, floods, hurricanes and so on.

In order to be useful it needs to provide a use in reality; not simply be a happy little fantasy.

14

Flat Earth General / Re: Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

« on: May 10, 2025, 02:07:08 PM »

2. You will be hit by an oncoming car, and either die or lose your memory, ending discussion.

How typical. Can't justify your BS so you just want me dead.

Again, I understand it quite well. It is quite simple geometry.

When the distance to the object remains roughly the same, as it is going directly perpendicular to the line connecting you to the object, then the angular size remains roughly the same.

But if it is doing that all the time, that means it is circling you.

Parallel lines are something entirely different from vanishing point.
These are parallel lines. Parallel lines are not vanishing point, because parallel lines never intersect or converge. Vanishing point is built on converging lines.

Do you truly have no idea at all what you are talking about? Or are you just intentionally just lying to everyone?

Vanishing point is built upon the idea of parallel lines appearing to converge and meet.
Because as they go off into the distance, the angular size of the gap between the lines gets smaller.

As a reminder, here is what you have already appealed to:

The vanishing point is a specific point on the horizon line where parallel lines appear to converge in perspective drawing

But now because this shows you are lying to everyone, you yet again need to come up with more BS to pretend you aren't wrong.

Sigh... you always quote geometry for me, when it is clear you did poorly in the class.

If I did so poorly why am I repeatedly correcting you and explaining why you are wrong?

I can literally superimpose a protractor at a line at the horizon. This is what I mean by parabola. It is the perspective primarily by angle rather than by distance.

Which directly contradicts your idea of the sun magically projecting onto a point on that parabola.

That protractor is simply an angle based upon the line of sight.

Now try drawing it the same elevation and distance

Again, if you want the sun to remain the same distance, that means it is circling us, and that cannot possibly explain why it appears to set.

With this you are basically just saying your FE BS is wrong and the RE model is right.

Tell me what you see happening when just angle changes.

You have the RE model and not your delusional FE BS.

In terms of elevation above us, the distance never changes.

And that is entirely irrelevant.
What matters is the distance TO the object.
Splitting that distance up into components and then having 1 of those components remain the same doesn't magically stop the angular size changing.

The way our vision works, we either see an object or we don't because of its angle. This means the vision of the sun is only a span of 3 to 100 miles ... you ought to be aware that something strange is going on. It's taking 12(ish) hours from the sun to move 3 miles away when Earth's diameter is 7000 miles

Yet again you try to insert your own delusional BS into a model where it has no place.

This shows a massive problem with YOUR model, with all your delusional claims.

The RE model is based upon the angle to the sun, based upon line of sight. Our vision of the sun is not a magical 3 to 100 mile span.
We simply see it when Earth isn't blocking the view.

Meanwhile, in your steaming pile of garbage, with a magical vision distance limit of 3 miles, with the sun on the equinox needing to trace half a circle with that circle having a radius of 10 000 km, shows something is very very wrong.
Yet you ignore all these problems with your garbage to keep asserting the same BS.

Again, the RE model works, your garbage does not.

I like how you cut the part

I like the part where you entirely ignored that I said based upon your model.
It doesn't take a genius to watch the sun rise one day and then predict it will rise at a similar time and direction the next day.
What you can't do is use your model to predict it.

It woefully does not.

You keep saying this, but you can't show a single fault.

Instead of a perfect arc, you would have something more akin to this.

Why?
Stop just asserting pathetic BS.
Try justifying it.

You can't translate this spiraling motion into anything resembling the sunrise/sunset we see.

Yes, we can, quite easily.
Firstly, it is not a spiral, it's a helix.
Secondly, as what matters is the relative position, you can entirely remove that translation around the galaxy, which then entirely removes that helix you are appealing to.

Meanwhile, I believe I have made a model overhead of the angles

You haven't.
You have drawn a crappy picture which does not allow any determination of the angles.
If you think you have, then provide, with the math required to predict an angle.

Watch the video. Watch the birds fly past. I despise having to explain things to people who don't put in the effort.

You are the one not putting in any effort.

I have seen plenty of birds fly past.
They appear quite small initially, and then appear to grow in size as they get closer, and pass overhead before appearing to shrink.
And the angle to them is based upon simple line of sight.

It doesn't match your delusional BS.

If you want to learn how the parabola works, I recommend you learn how to learn first.

I know how to learn.
It isn't just accepting delusional BS a lying conman spouts.
I use critical thinking to reject it.

Why should anyone believe a word you say when you refuse to explain and deflect so often it isn't funny?
Why should anyone believe a word you say when you demonstrate such a complete lack of understanding of perspective and vanishing point?

15

Flat Earth General / Re: Trigonometry Degrades Technology

« on: May 10, 2025, 06:03:34 AM »

As much as school's physics, Trigonometry is also a joke.

Yet you can't show a single fault with it.
Instead, you just appeal to it not matching your joke, which just shows your joke is wrong.

in my view, the radius would be 3.14159/3.17157

And until you can justify such a view, it is entirely worthless.

The thing is, trigonometry still have several correct values, i.e. in perfect angles, such as 90°, 60°, 45°, 30°.

And from those you can use double angle theorems and the like to get a bunch of other angles as well.

in appropriate small angles (enlarged) you'll find the chord lengths are relatively identical to arc lengths while you see in diagram of circle, there should be a few more length needed to match the actual circle.

No, you don't.
That is because they are not actually identical, just incredibly close.
And that is because that portion of the circle is basically a straight line.

e.g. if you take 0.1 degrees, then the line only varies in angle by 0.1 degrees. That makes it basically straight.

that's not correct.

Instead of just saying it's not correct, why don't you try explaining the error?
Otherwise it is just your wilful rejection of reality.

Experiments suggests the correct values is more than 3.14159.

You say that, yet you can't provide any.

By cursor projection

Or to say that more honestly, by baseless assertion.

4×90° ? ... It's not fit in 1°. What if it's replaced with digital numbers? 4×128° would be nice. 😇

You can use any number you want.
One rarely used example are gradians, where 360 degrees is 400 gradians.
Then there is also the natural unit for angle, but that has pi which you hate.

360 was chosen because it is highly multiplicative.
You can divide it by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, and the result of those divisions.

16

Flat Earth General / Re: Really, boats would have to sail up hill?

« on: May 10, 2025, 05:55:29 AM »

Jesus Christ, your cognitive dissonance is so far up your ass that your own picture has checked as correct water doming up, which to and sensible person would mean that yes, this means boats do need to travel up and down a hill of water. Instead, you take a look at that picture and are like, "How can Bulma say that? I just don't see it!"

You mean you hate reality, outright reject it; and continually insert your own delusional BS of a magical universal down into models describing reality where such BS has no place?

Do you understand what "up" means on the RE model?
Because you keep acting like you have no idea.

And what makes it even more pathetic is how you then don't apply the same level of stupid to your FE fantasy.

You are happy with 2 locations on a circle being the same distance from the north pole and thus travel between them just being east or west, without thinking you need to go north or south between them.
This demonstrates that you understand this concept, you just refuse to apply it when it shows you are wrong.

Going from A to B in that curve is not going uphill, it is going level.

You should also really stop using discord for your useless images.
As it has disappeared you have spelled out nothing.

How is your brain so fucked up that you think it would be the lowest potential for water to mound up rather than laying flat?

Yes.
Ignoring gravity, water will attempt to minimise its surface area.
So that would make it try to go into a sphere.

But again, you fail to understand the difference between flat and level.
You fail to understand the difference between level and uphill.

You are basically saying "How is your brain so fucked up that you don't just mindlessly accept this baseless FE garbage".

Why should water be flat?
Do you have any justification at all?
NO!
Just magic down.

Meanwhile, the RE model does have an explanation. An explanation which has been shown to work countless times.

According to your own picture, according to your own theory of gravity, water lays flat as a matter of falling to center.

Do you understand what you just said?
Because you literally just contradicted yourself.

If they are trying to fall to the centre, that means it is getting as close to the centre as possible.
This means if the surface is such that part is further away from the centre than another, it will move to get closer, even if it needs to fall a bit sideways.
That means in this simple hypothetical, the surface will adopt a shape that is an equal distance from the centre.

And what will that be for a surface in 3D space around a centre? A sphere.

So no, according to gravity, water will adopt a roughly spherical surface as a matter of falling to the centre.


So what is wrong with your brain?

it's time to slap some sense into you, because you are hardcore under a delusion.

So time to slap some sense into you?

More cognitive dissonance. Let's look at the picture again.

There is no picture.
But given your text, you have clearly done it wrong.

so a bathtub would be the ideal place to check whether water mounds

No. It is a horrible place to try.

This again demonstrates a complete lack of understanding or wilful misrepresentation on your part.

If you tried thinking for once in your life you would understand that means you are looking at a tiny portion of a massive curve.
The drop due to this curve can be approximated as d^2/2R.
Assuming your bathtub is 2 m long, then going from the centre to an edge (to measure the height of that mound) is 1 m, and that drop is a mere 78 nm.
You are not going to see that.

Instead, you need a much greater distance.

Where you can then look at objects across a large body of water and see that the bottom of the object is hidden by the water, even though both it and you are above the water.
The simplest and most straightforward explanation of that is the fact that Earth is round.

This is not due to a mound, the lake is simply to big to see from one end to another.

What magic is stopping you?
We have plenty of examples showing it isn't simply too small.
And you keep appealing to magic distance limits but can't justify it.

Quit lying to yourself, and see some damned reason!

Follow your own advice.

So your rationale is that because mist obscures parts of buildings, they don't exist and this picture is not real?

No, the rationale is that a scaled down view of a closer view of the building shows the bottom should be below the horizon.
This shows water is blocking the view.

while you lie up and down.

Nope, that is still you.

Let me explain why Fata Morgana is pretty good proof that we are not in fact looking at curvature.

You mean let you spout more pathetic lies which fail to address the topic at hand?
None of what you have provided in any way show any problem with the RE.

But it's not so. Solids can be shaped in a sphere (as in a boulder)

Now treat that like Earth.
Draw some lines to the centre of that.
Then show how that should make water flat.

its tendency to lie flat is consistent with your gravity

No, it isn't.
As has already been explained.

So you start with baseless BS to reach BS conclusions.

On the other hand, it is difficult or impossible to build a proper bridge on curved ground.

You have asserted this BS before, but can't justify it at all.

On any level river, contrary to your delusion, ... you can turn the boat around and paddle or motor or whatever in the other direction. It's perfectly flat, and if you learned to actually understand things, you wouldn't be fooled by silly ideas.

Says the one continually appealing to their own delusions as if they are fact and refusing to understand.

Back in reality, it is LEVEL not flat. Following the curve of Earth.

Repeating the same delusional BS wont help you.
You are doing the very thing called out in the OP.

Gravity makes no difference when driving uphill

And more delusional BS.
It makes quite a big difference.
It is much easier to go downhill than uphill.

17

Flat Earth General / Re: WHY would the government trick us?

« on: May 10, 2025, 05:16:49 AM »

At the end of it all, knowing that nothing I do could earn salvation (which is taught as a free gift called grace), I help with Lions and with a food bank. Do I do everything I possibly can the poor and needy? Not hardly. I do what I do, not that regularly and not that much.

And yet you oppose the idea of helping others on a grander scale.

Today's Atheist has much in common with Yesterday's Pharisee.

If you just let religious conmen do all your thinking you wont be getting much correct knowledge.

You make fantasies about the shape of the Earth to conform to your godless view of reality.

Nope, that would still be you.
Remember, we have a model which works, which can describe so much of reality, which you are unable to show any fault with.
Conversely, you have a steaming pile of garbage which fails at trivial hurdles.

The important thing in this world is not to set standards for others that you yourself will not intend to keep.

And I don't.
I have a standard to not be hypocritical and to be honest (with obvious exceptions like if someone asks if a dress makes them look fat you generally don't say yes). I keep that to the best of my ability, and I will call people out on their BS.

You're talking about government aid.

No, basically any system. And you continually pervert it to pretend it is bad.

Jesus said to his disciples

to go steal stuff.

The government could indeed have charities for people who legitimately can't work. Or this money could be refunded to taxpayers and to charities, and they could handle people who don't or can't work.

Which then requires them to actually be willing to do that. But instead as we have seen time and time again is the rich like hording their wealth, like the POS you are defending.

The government can never do this, no matter how much money they have.

It can, but doesn't, because of useful fools like you that vote for people that in no way have their best interest in mind.

And if it weren't for those regulations you hate so much, it would be far far worse.

So if I'm in the middle of a forest in the absolute middle of nowhere

Which is not what was being discussed.
You specifically appealed to a rest stop, and even wanted fruit trees planted.
So who is doing all that?
Who is making and maintaining the rest stop? Who is planting the fruit trees and looking after them?
And if you live there in the rest stop and eat the fruit, that sure sounds like you are profiting from their labour.

The only thing I would want to police is that we don't need more damned data centers.

Which is just more hypocrisy from you.
If you want no regulation, then those data centres are free to take the water, as much as they want, and leave absolutely none for the farmers.
You are a hypocrite for opposing regulation, as if regulation is the problem, when you want it.
Why not want that regulation removed so they can do what they want with the water. Then maybe they will be nice and give some to the famer.
That seems to be your idea for money isn't it?

18

Flat Earth General / Re: Legitimate Question for FE.

« on: May 10, 2025, 04:49:39 AM »

But this exactly is proof the Earth is flat, not round. Let's see which works better:

You mean lets draw a picture and then spout a load of pure BS.

Basically, the more the mountain curves, the easier it is for a cloud bank to just rain on both sides.

Prove it.
You still have the peak, you still have the large change in altitude which causes it.

19

Flat Earth General / Re: Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

« on: May 06, 2025, 02:12:41 PM »

Let's explain it slowly for those slow to understand.

Try actually explaining, including an understanding of what parallel lines are, and how the vanishing point works.
This requires you to understand geometry, a part of math.
A part which shows you are spouting BS.

But even look at your crappy animation, again the car is there and just shrinks.
Fundamentally different to the sun magically projecting onto your dome.

You have 2 fundamentally different ideas.

What's changing is the angle.

In reality, yes.
In your delusional BS, no.
You don't simply have the angle to the sun change. That would still just be line of sight.
You have pure magic.

When the angle does not change (the van)

The angle to the van does change.
Again truly simple to understand:


The nearer object has a large angular size, while the further object has a smaller angular size.
This is entirely because of the angles to the various points on the object.

This is also what makes it appear lower.

A changing angle however, the object appears to arc instead of shrinking.

A changing angle, with the object remaining the same distance away, causes it to appear to sink without shrinking.
Otherwise, you can't have it sink, without having it shrink.
The 2 are intrinsically related. You can't have one without the other.

Btw, you guys were talking about how you can't predict the location of the sun cuz you're one of those ignorant FEers.

You cannot predict it based upon your model.
Because your model is a steaming pile of garbage which doesn't work.

You still can't explain how the sun magically projects onto your parabola to produce the results expected for a RE.
Meanwhile, the RE does explain it.

1. The birds, when flying laterally, do not shrink in quite the same way as they do when they fly away from us.

Do you mean when they are remaining roughly the same distance away?
i.e. the very thing which does not apply in your steaming pile of garbage.

2. The proximity of the birds appears to affect their altitude. So closer birds can in some cases appear to be flying above the sun, while more distant birds might fly more level to the setting sun.

i.e. you fail to understand that when viewing the world through a 2D angular lens you can't tell how far away things are?


So stop just repeating the same pathetic BS, and actually try to explain it.
Go through the geometric origins of perspective and vanishing point to show how it actually works.
And explain how your magic parabola works.

20

Flat Earth General / Re: WHY would the government trick us?

« on: May 06, 2025, 02:03:00 PM »

No, I'm saying that you're holding Christianity to a standard that you don't adhere to or agree with.

Then you don't realise what pointing out hypocrisy is.

No, they are humans.

Again, not mutually exclusive.
They are hypocrites, picking the parts they want to pretend they are good, while actively ignoring the parts they don't like to attack people following that.

Just like you ignore the parts you don't like to attack ideas you don't like even though they are supported.

The secular globalists are hypocrites.

Why?
What holy book are they meant to be following?

@JackBlack, since you hold other people to a standard of perfection

And another lie.
Where have I ever done that?

Context is important.

And it doesn't help you.
It doesn't negate the idea of trying to help others, such as with globalism.

That's the same interpretation that a typical preacher just out of Bible college would make (that is, not a seminary trained one). It's a surface level reading of the text.

No, it is about an honest interpretation of the text, with you running for excuses to explain why you shouldn't help people and should be opposed to efforts to do so.
Notice how you don't actually show any fault with what I have said?

The condemnation is for after death. This is about learning to be prepared for that, when you will not know when it happens.

in what way do you have the right to accuse them?

Because I'm not a hypocrite.

Your failure to understand critical thinking could be why you never question why you are taught as a child.

Again, I do understand what it is. YOU are the one who appears not to.
You seem to want it to simply be rejecting what you are taught as a child.
That is NOT critical thinking.

Did you hear that?

Did you read it?
Notice how it is not just limited to what you have been taught.
So the idea that you weren't taught FE as a child so people can't reject it with critical thinking is just pure BS which itself is actually entirely absent of critical thinking.

you don't question it, I wouldn't say you've done any thinking

Again, there is a fundamental difference between questioning and rejecting.
For example one could question how the tides work with a high tide opposite the moon and question how that works with the moon allegedly being the source of attraction to cause the tides.
By applying critical thinking, you recognise the moon is not just attracting the water but all of Earth with a force which is inversely related to distance, so Earth, on average, is attracted some amount, the water closer to it is attracted more and will bulge out and the water further away will be attracted less and lag behind - effectively bulging out when viewed from Earth.
That is thinking critically.

Conversely, a complete lack of critical thinking is deciding you don't like the RE model and looking for pathetic excuses to reject it, like seeing a tide opposite the moon, boldly claiming that can't possibly work, and saying the RE model is wrong.

And there are plenty of other examples, and we can do the same for FE to show it doesn't work.

Again, I do question assumptions and think about things critically. That doesn't mean I reject them. Instead, that depends on if they can withstand that questioning.
If those questions can be answered in a logical manner, supported by evidence, then there is no reason to reject them.

What changed my mind? Well, this was when I was on Minds.com looking at an animation of the sun and moon moving overhead a flat Earth. And I remember thinking, "That's stupid." And then I thought again, "Why is it stupid? Am I saying that because I think it's stupid? Or because people have been telling me it's wrong?" And I realized that all my life, it had been the latter. So I started watching the sun, moon, and the sky.

And then displayed a complete lack of critical thinking by deciding to throw out reality and cling to BS, without any critical thinking of the situation.

A simple way to tell it is wrong is the sunset.

Do people change their mind from something then change it back? Not usually

Yes, usually they act more like you.
Decide they were wrong the first time and they must be right now, and then reject all forms of critical thought to stay entrenched in their beliefs.
It is much rarer, but not impossible, for someone to realise they were actually wrong when they switched, and so switch back.

This also depends on how well informed they are with each side.
If people haven't really gone into it much, and just accept reality because the majority do, it is likely going to be relatively easy to con them into believing BS that goes against reality, without them needing any critical thinking.
Then later, they can actually try to critically think about things, and reject it.
i.e. they were never really "convinced" of that first position. It was just a position they happened to have.

Perhaps one of the most common occurrences of this is with theism/atheism and other childhood beliefs of imaginary things.
Everyone is born an atheist, without any belief in a god.
But then they get conned by their parents or some other authority figure into believing the BS.
Then later on they can actually think about it and realise they were wrong, and leave it, going back to the earlier atheist position, but this time with them being less likely to get conned into theism.
The same can be said of all sorts of stuff kids believe as children, like the tooth fairy and Santa and the Easter bunny.

And look at people like you. You clearly did not understand the RE model. You didn't understand the evidence for it or why it is so wildly accepted by scientists that know what they are talking about.
Instead you decided you didn't like and decided to join a cult.
That is the story with basically all FEers.
The question then becomes then what?
You can try to actually apply critical thinking; to honestly evaluate both. And if you do, you find FE doesn't work while RE does. And this would cause an honest, intelligent person to admit they were mistaken and go back to accepting Earth is round.



So there are plenty of examples and plenty of reasons to accept people being in one group, leaving it for whatever reason, only to return later.

Someone doing that in no way indicates that they weren't using critical thinking to re-join, or that they were bullied into it, or any of the other convoluted BS you need to appeal to dismiss this very real occurrence of people rejecting the FE after being FEers.

21

Flat Earth General / Re: Katy Perry in space

« on: May 05, 2025, 03:34:54 PM »

No, I'm saying that you have found a few exceptions and have decided that they represent what feminism is.

It is not a few exceptions. It is not some niche group.
It is a very vocal portion of feminists.

And again, infant genital mutilation is a great example of it.
Feminists groups are quite vocal in opposition to it specifically for females. That makes absolutely no sense in a context of equality.

So the definition of feminism being about equality doesn’t apply to feminism?

No, multiple definitions exist, and not all require equality.
So feminism, in general, does not require the focus to be on equality.

And now it’s feminism if one woman benefits?  Even if that’s detrimental to the goals feminism or just women in general?

Just pointing out that it is wrong to say no woman benefits.
In what way is it detrimental to the goals of feminism or women in general, other than the backlash from it?
Would it have been better for them if this publicity stunt didn't happen and it was just another rich person tourist ride with men and women?

The definition has been expanded, but it’s always been about men sticking their dicks where they’re not welcome.

i.e. it has always been viewed through an entirely sexist lens when men are the bad people.
Again, if feminism was truly about equality, they would want to expand it to include women being bad as well, not just men.

I’ve a much better question- what are you doing to campaign for and support male victims of sexual violence?  Or are you just whining that women aren’t fighting for what you think is more important?

How is that a much better question?
It has lots of implicit assumptions and biases in there.
The question is am I campaigning for and supporting male and female victims equally; and condemning male and female perpetrators equally?

Likewise, is the issue that these feminists, allegedly wanting equality, are only focusing on male perpetrators and female victims?

Combating sexual violence is a good thing.

And minimising the rape of men as "not rape" is NOT a good thing.
Trying to keep the focus of those male victims of female perpetrators to pretend that it is mainly male perpetrators and female victims is NOT a good thing.

Why not let them get on with trying to reduce it for women

If they want to stop pretending they care about equality, and stop trying to minimise the rape of men, then fine.
If people like stop pretending they are doing it for equality, and stop trying to minimise the rape of men, then fine.

But if you want to pretend it is about equality, while the pull shit like this, I will object.

This is just the age old shitty accusation that campaigners for any good cause have alway faced.  “If they really cared, they’d be campaigning for x instead”.

No, it isn't.
That is your strawman, based on a dichotomy.
It isn't one or the other.
Why not both?
Why not try to support all victims, male and female, of both male and female perpetrators?

It isn't that they should focus solely on this other group instead. It is that if they truly cared then they wouldn't be excluding this group.

The only time I use something like what you have provided are for cases like infant genital mutilation.
Where if they cared about equality, they would not be campaigning as they are, because what they are trying to do is furthering the inequality; demonstrating quite clearly that it is not about equality.

22

Flat Earth General / Re: WHY would the government trick us?

« on: May 05, 2025, 03:13:55 PM »

So... have you been running programs to give your entire closet to strangers? What about soup kitchens? A hospital?

I'm not a Christian, but you are appealing to a strawman that globalism doesn't require or even suggest.

Yet Christians everywhere feel justified in declaring themselves decent people.

Because they are hypocrites, that just pick the parts they want to judge themselves.

Because that passage is out of context. Matthew 25:1-12; 14-30

Context doesn't help you.
The first is about being prepared.
The second is about making use of stuff rather than just storing it away.

The best you can do is say the Bible contradicts itself and so is utterly useless as a guide.

Critical thinking means to question what you have been taught, usually using some sort of standards of logic.

No, it doesn't. and that might be why you seem to dishonestly think you are using it.
It is not restricted to just things you have been taught, nor does it simply mean to question, which lots of FEers seem to interpret to mean reject.

It applies to ALL things. That includes things you have been taught and things you have come up with.
So that would include FE. Something you don't seem to want to apply critical thinking to.

So the fact someone is or is not taught something in school has no bearing at all on applying critical thinking to it.

Someone can go through school and only get a superficial idea of the round Earth, then get tricked into thinking it is false by persuasive BS form FE con men, and then later use critical thinking to realise the FE is pure BS.

23

Flat Earth General / Re: WHY would the government trick us?

« on: May 05, 2025, 03:05:26 PM »

It is though.

You claim this, but are yet to demonstrate it.

I believe there is something called "The Final Experiment"

You mean the thing you are desperate to reject so you baselessly assert the FEers there are fake?
I asked for cases you have proven.
Not pathetic assertions with no substance.

You say that, but there are plenty such videos where exactly this happens.

Again, that is your baseless assertion.
Your position is so pathetic and desperate you need to pretend anyone that shows FE is so incredibly stupid is secretly not a flat Earther, except for you and your cult leader.

If you want to understand just how heavily censored flat Earth is

Yet another pathetic deflection from you.
That is not what we were discussing.
We were discussing your pathetic claims that people are pretending to be FEers just to then later recant and say they were wrong.
That has nothing to do with claims of censorship.

And no, a search engine not recommending crap is not censorship.
Likewise, a search engine giving a summary of your crap is not censorship.

Would you say that Christianity is debunked? Or suppressed?

You act like they are mutually exclusive.
You are aware it could be both? That it is debunked, so these search engines, to be more credible, supress the garbage.
If you are searching for information, would you like the first results to be complete crap full of lies and errors? Or would you like them to be a more honest and accurate representation of the topic?

You are basically complaining that all your FE buddies are providing complete crap so their results are less valued so they get pushed to the back of the line.

Again, this does absolutely nothing to prop up your delusional fantasy of FEers being fake.

Yes, indeed, the followers of Jesus are called a flock.

Yes, you display such extreme stupidity.
Going off at people for being "sheep", while you are happy to be a sheep.

Why isn't there?

Because it brings them no benefit and opens them up to massive risks of being exposed as lying.

People who accept a model of Earth that is not based on the Bible

So your complaint is that your useless holy book contradicts reality?

not based on critical science but "96% of scientists agree".

No, it is based upon critical science, which results in the vast majority of scientists agreeing, with no credible scientist rejecting it because the evidence is overwhelming.

But rather than handle that evidence you ignore it all and pretend it is just based upon scientists agreeing.

But for something so easy to verify (if you have a brain and decide to use it, so that rules you out) it would completely destroy the credibility of those scientists if they lied about it.

Is there any science to totally shutting down all energy in California in favor of unreliable solar generators?

You mean your completely illogical strawman which makes no sense?
No.

But there is science to move away from methods of power generation which produce large amounts of CO2 to go towards better alternatives.

How about convincing kids at age 12 that they need a sex change?

No, that is social justice warriors, not science.
But your stance is also ridiculous. Why should people have to have a child in order to do it?
They should need to be well informed adults.

And I know REers are shills, photo editors, woke idiots, and professional scammers.

No, you don't know. You pathetically assert that because you can't handle reality.
You have nothing to defend any of that BS.
You just need to pretend so you can pretend all those mean people telling you you are wrong are just shills and lying, instead of sane people that see through your pathetic BS.

Here's Will Lane Craig talking about how FE makes Christianity look silly

Because even ridiculous people like him can see how utterly stupid FE is, and he recognises the Bible saying Earth is flat is an argument against the Bible and against accepting Christianity.

Do you happen to know what Jesus's parable of the sheep and goats is about?

So you just cherry pick one parable?
What about all the others?
What about Jesus helping others?
What about Jesus literally telling you to sell your possessions and give to the poor?

The name isn't some coincidence.

No, it is simply based upon the fact that Earth is round, i.e. roughly a globe.
So if you want to discuss all of Earth, you can say the globe.

First you force everyone to agree the Earth is round

No, we don't.
Again, other than the name (and trying to transport things with useful maps and so on), there is no dependence on the shape of Earth.

then everyone must use the metric system.

Again, not required.
Just something that would be helpful for intercompatibility, where you are able to buy goods in one location and get parts for them in others.
But good on you for still using a system based upon kings.

Then everyone must reduce carbon emissions to zero

No, net emissions.
And that is certainly possible, and your baseless BS doesn't change that.

Then everyone must drive an electric car.

Again, no.
The ideal would be a better public transport system.
And to use carbon neutral fuels.
That could be ethanol, or hydrogen or a battery.

And everyone must agree that mass immigration helps the world.

And again wrong.
And this goes with basically everything you have said and it is just getting repetive.
But notice a key lack of something in all of this? The shape of Earth.

None of that depends on the shape of Earth.

Globalism is basically ... + some RE assumptions

Again, what assumptions?
You have provided nothing other than the name connecting it to the shape of Earth.

24

Flat Earth General / Re: Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

« on: May 05, 2025, 02:44:05 PM »

We can see from this picture what is really happening when observing multiple boats.

We can see PART of what is happening.
Notice what that picture of yours lacks? Any boat close or past the horizon.

Again, we are not saying perspective isn't real. We are not saying objects do not take up a smaller angular size as they get further away.
We are saying that there are things in addition to that.

Showing a picture of a boat BEFORE the horizon does absolutely nothing to address why when they go past the horizon they disappear form the bottom up.

It is nothing more, nor has ever been anything more, than vanishing point perspective.

Except as shown by countless examples, including your own images.

Now, I believe that I made you a promise.

Should I draw how lines of vanishing point relate to the parabola?

And you have utterly failed to deliver.
Instead of even attempting an explanation, you have just provided another crappy diagram with lines drawn all over it with no explanation at all.

Do you know perhaps the biggest issue with your pathetic drawing?
You have tried to draw a side view of perspective.

This is what a vanishing point perspective looks like from an outwards view, i.e. from a view of a person looking outwards, where it applies:


This is what it looks like from a side view:


And this is the simple geometry behind it appearing to shrink:

Notice that the further away objects take up a smaller angle.
That gives them a smaller angular size.
Notice that your parabola isn't here at all?
Notice that the sun is not magically projecting onto a magical dome to magically produce the results expected for a FE?

This is why they are fundamentally incompatible.

Another big reason is the location of the vanishing point.
You have the vanishing point a finite distance away, at the edge of your magic parabola, some 3 archaic units away from the observer normally.
But the vanishing point is literally the point where parallel lines meet. That requires an infinite distance.


Even your explanation, when truly understood to be what you are trying to pretend, literally makes no sense.
You are trying to suggest the sun is magically lowered to the vanishing point and then below it.
This makes no sense at all.
In order to reach the vanishing point it needs to go an infinite distance. You can't go beyond that to get below.

Our priority is the foreground not the background. The background could literally be anything.

No, our priority is the horizon and objects near it.
Something your image doesn't address at all.

And speaking of which, most pictures of satellites are fake too.
This is an open secret

No, it is not a secret.
Try it more honestly. They are explicitly stated to be artist renditions.

But this is just yet another pathetic deflection from you.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What keeps us on the ground

« on: May 05, 2025, 02:22:11 PM »

Wait a minute! Are you saying that flat-earthers say the Earth is round and accelerating outwards, i.e. expanding at an ever-increasing rate? If that's the case, how is it "FLAT"?

Not most, just this particular one.
They are appealing to a particular interpretation of GR to appeal to non-Euclidean space time, to try saying the surface of Earth is "flat" in the curved space-time.
It isn't flat by any stretch of the imagination, but that is the game they are appealing to.
Likewise, they are appealing to the same game when they are saying Earth is accelerating upwards, that in general relativity you can interpret it as free fall being an inertial reference frame and Earth is accelerating outwards through curved space time, and our "inertia" which is really just gravity is keeping us on the surface of Earth.

Their "flat" earth model, is the round Earth model with gravity holding us on Earth's surface, with some semantic BS thrown in to try to redefine things.

So they aren't saying people are lying, just "mistaken".

But I admit that I an flummoxed by what they believe about the Earth, because there seem to be several, if not many, entirely different and contradictory versions of flat-earth. Is the Earth an infinite plane? Is it a disk? How thick is it? What is underneath it? Or does it go on down infinitely? If it's infinitely thick and accelerating upwards, how is that possible?  If it's a disk accelerating upwards, would we be left behind if we managed to get past the NASA penguins and got over the ice wall and fell off the edge? Are the sun and Moon lamps on tracks or holograms projected on an overhead screen of some sort?

And that is because Earth isn't flat and you need wildly different ideas to address different points, and in order to do so, you contradict other points.
So you end up with a bunch of contradictory models.

And they like keeping them ill defined, so they can pretend they can work and adjust as needed to pretend they do.

26

Flat Earth General / Re: Katy Perry in space

« on: May 04, 2025, 03:21:43 PM »

These are not two unrelated things.

So you entirely fail to understand how definitions work?
They are 2 definitions for a particular concept.
It is not saying both must apply.

So once again you scrub the equality part and there’s no mention of trying to elevate women above men.

The equality part wasn't there. You trying to force it in when it didn't exist, is your problem.
The point is not that it specifically says to elevate women above men, it is that it doesn't preclude it.
And as shown by examples, that is what they are doing.

No, it’s actions to promote Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin joy rides for the filthy rich and Katy Perry’s upcoming tour dates. There’s no benefit for women with this nonsense.

Well as Katy Perry is a woman, it would seem like there is at least a benefit for one woman.
But if you want to go down this path, you could do the same for so much other BS from feminism.

The first big problem was you trying to blame feminist mentality for the definition of rape in English law, which predates feminist movements by centuries.

Yet again, you distort the facts.
The question is where are the feminists trying to get equality rather than superiority?

And this isn't some ancient law we are talking about. This is the sexual offences act 2003.
i.e. it was a bill passed in 2003.

And it isn't like the law can't be updated.
e.g. back in the Sexual Offences Act 1956, it was specifically for a man to rape a woman, with no elaboration, and included a provision for it to still be rape if a man tricks a woman into thinking he is her husband.
It was then expanded in 1994 to include the rape of men by men, expanding it to include both vaginal and anal intercourse.
It was then updated in 2003 to include oral sex, and remove the part about a woman being tricked into thinking he was her husband.

So no problems expanding the definition, as long as they keep it so there can only ever be male perpetrators.

So why not go that step further and make it gender neutral, so both men and women can be legally recognised as having committed rape.

Why should they?

Equality.
You know that very thing you were saying they are trying to do?
Or do you want the idea of equality that was quite common in the US of "different but equal", where it is fine for a school for only white people as long as black people also got a school.

And in part to stop the very mentality you are displaying.

It’s just willful ignorance to pretend that the threat of sexual violence by women on men is even remotely close to what women have to watch out for.

No, it is wilful ignorance, built upon the very thing I am calling out, to pretend that women are so much more the victim of rape.
e.g. look at this report, and the key claims they want to present from it:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140604235001/https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf

e.g. right at the top of Key Findings, they want to report 1 in 5 women and 1 in 71 men have been "raped".
You need to go further down to see that 1 in 21 men were "made to penetrate".

And if you go to table 2.1 and 2.2, you can see that 1.1% of women were "raped", and 1.1% of men were "made to penetrate" in the 12 months leading up to the survey.
We also see a total of 5.6% vs 5.3% for sexual violence (assuming all women who reported being "raped" also experienced some other form.

So it is nothing like this massively 1 sided thing you want to present it as.

So no, it is not wilful ignorance on my part.

No doubt there are individuals who do. There is a range of views and opinions in any group or movement. But that is not what feminism is, and it's not what the feminist movement as a whole is demanding.

So you are just saying the vast majority of so called feminists do not represent the feminist movement or follow what feminism is about?

I have provided clear examples.
The most clear-cut is the issue of infant genital mutilation.
Where feminism opposes doing this to women.
That makes it clear it is not about equality.

Even today they have fewer opportunities and are paid less for doing the same work to the same standards.

I fail to see this anywhere in the west.
In fact, I find the exact opposite.
There are plenty of opportunities which are literally just for women. Where men are excluded from applying. All in the name of "equality".
Likewise, I can't find actual cases of an actual wage gap. Instead there are normally other factors which influence it, such as working overtime and the particular jobs.

Some men recognize

And some sane people recognise that there is discrimination the other way and will speak out against it instead of dismissing it. Even when people like you will dismissing them as being a bigot when they do.

Just look at how you have responded.
Doing whatever you can to just brush it away.
Ignoring clear examples I provide, and trying to label me as a bigot.

And defining a multibillionaire's blatant publicity stunt as "feminism" is just an absurd attempt to disparage what feminism actually is.

No, it isn't.
It is calling out what it is.
It was a feminist stunt to have an all female crew.
I see no reason to not label it as feminism, compared to all the crap feminism has produced.

27

Flat Earth General / Re: Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

« on: May 04, 2025, 02:40:49 PM »

Actually when I said we could see a decent view on occasion from 50 miles, you never let go that I once said 100 miles and harped on that while showing subpar shots.

Firstly, that wasn't me.
More importantly, that was demonstrating you were lying about the distance involved.
In no way was it saying you can't see forever.

You can literally go outside an look at a line of trees diminishing

And importantly, look at the leaves. You can clearly make out the leaves of the very close by tree. But as it goes off into the distance, the leaves start to all blur together and you can see the canopy, and the tree, but not the individual leaves.
And as the trees go further off, they to begin to blur becoming too small for your eyes to resolve.
But then you pull out a pair of binoculars, and you can see that you can resolve leaves and trees further away, and you can see how the trees appear to sink as they go over the horizon.

This shows that it is not some magical distance limit.
Instead, it is a case of objects of particular sizes being resolvable from a certain distance away with certain optics.
This does not produce the horizon you need.

And to make it even worse, if you get a bright light, you can then see that from much further away even though you can't resolve it.

So no, that does not show you can't see forever.
It does not explain the horizon or sunsets and so on.

You claimed my examples weren't real and replaced them with shoddy substitutes.

What examples?
Where have you ever provided an example from a high altitude (or with great enough resolution) with something to indicate where eye level is?
I am yet to see a single example of that from you.
Instead you provide an image and just claim where eye level is with no basis.
And typically these images you provide are from quite low altitude.

They are the same thing.

Repeatedly asserting the same lie will not help you.
Appealing to AI and ignoring what it says will not help you.
Nor will appealing to AI to take it talking about perspective geometry and pretending that is what happens in reality.

e.g. try asking this:

in reality is the horizon at eye level

No, in reality, the horizon is always below eye level due to the curvature of the Earth

If the vanishing point is above the horizon (as it is in RE pictures) then you have done something to distort perspective.

Or your delusional BS is wrong, and Earth is round.

The simple fact is the horizon IS below eye level, it IS below the vanishing point for level parallel lines.
There is plenty to show this, and you have absolutely nothing to refute it.

Again, your argument is entirely circular.
You baselessly assert the horizon is at eye level and at the same level as the vanishing point.
To then dismiss photos clearly show that is not the case, to then conclude it is to pretend Earth is flat.

Do you notice how that building is in midair?

I noticed that the part of the photo right near the horizon is most distorted as would be expected.
That does not help you explain why the top of the building is lower than it should be.
That is not the sky curving anything.

Should I draw how lines of vanishing point relate to the parabola?
Will that make you understand?

You had already tried that and said it was different.

The simple fact, is you are appealing to vanishing point, that is things getting smaller as they move further away.
You can understand this with simple perspective geometry.
Mark your vanishing point.
Draw the sun at some close point.
Then draw straight lines from the vanishing point to be tangent to the sun.
Then as the sun moves away into the distance, it needs to stay between those lines.
And then throw in the basic geometry which actually dictates that to reality your sun would never set.

Your pictures ... cutting out a layer

No, they aren't.
You have absolutely no basis to assert this.
You are just desperate to reject reality so you make up whatever excuse you need.

What we have instead of a dip is a convergence point. No, objects don't disappear bottom up.

Yet there are countless examples showing them disappearing from the bottom up.
Including a near daily occurrence of the sun setting.
That is not the sun converging to a point.

Your own examples of the skylines with the bottom of the buildings missing, as if the entire city had sunk into Earth demonstrate this.

I can still see the base and sail of the boat. If this were really about disappearing we should see just the sail at around this point.

Why?
You take an example of a boat well in front of the horizon, a horizon which is difficult to see due to fog, and then just baselessly assert that it should magically be half hidden.

It being blocked from view by Earth as it goes over the horizon does not mean it magically wont shrink.

We are not saying perspective isn't real and things just sink into Earth as they get further away. We are saying it doesn't explain what is observed, of an object going beyond the horizon and appearing to sink into Earth, disappearing from the bottom up.

28

Flat Earth General / Re: WHY would the government trick us?

« on: May 04, 2025, 02:14:05 PM »

False flag is a very real phenomenon in FE

Is it though?
Are there any actual cases you have proven?
Or is that just your pathetic dismissal of those who leave because you can't handle the fact people can leave your cult?
Is that desperation why you feel the need to isolate, so you can later pretend that anyone who leaves isn't a real FEer?

Of course there is also the far more obvious reason, FE doesn't work so different FEers come up with contradictory crazy ideas to pretend it works.
But they then contradict the crazy ideas of other FEers.

people intentionally dress like hicks or weird paranoid types to smear the movement's reputation.

None of that is needed.
The reputation of FEers are morons, gullible fools, and paranoid delusional nutcases.
There is no good reputation to smear.

If you want to use that as the standard for being a fake FEer, then guess what? It means you are a fake FEer, it means your cult leader Eric id s fake FEer.
It means pretty much all FEers are.

And do you know why?
You keep repeating the same BS arguments. You keep dismissing everything that shows you are wrong as fake, as if you are so paranoid that you then there is a global conspiracy to fake the FEer.
So paranoid that you believe there are so many people faking being a FEer, for so long, just to turn around and admit FE is wrong.
You fail to present anything that actually works as a FE model, and you continually deflect.

So if you want to use that standard to dismiss people as fake FEers, you can go and dismiss them all, including yourself.

When people ask "WWJD?"

They are wanting to be like a sheep.
Instead of asking what is the right thing to do or deciding for themselves what to do, they just want to play follow the leader.

We ought to assume that government wants to trick us.

The question is for what purpose.
They aren't just going to try to trick you for shits and giggles.
There is no reason for them to try to trick you about the shape of Earth.

We have to believe that the Russian/US Cold War was itself largely a sham

Yes, you have to believe so much paranoid BS it isn't funny.

You may as well be asking stupid BS like what happens if we find out Earth is actually made of chocolate?
It is delusional BS so far disconnected from reality it isn't funny.

So that good teacher who seemed to know everything who told you the Earth was round? She was either an idiot or a state-sponsored agent.

Or someone who accepts reality.

yes, globalization and globalism are ideas dependent on the idea that the Earth is a globe, without this fundamental concept, all the rhetoric falls apart

No, it isn't.
And it is far more in line with what Jesus would do.

The sole dependence on the shape of Earth for those ideas is the name.
They are called that because Earth is a globe.
But they have NOTHING to do with the shape of Earth.

Instead, they are far more to do with the interconnectivity of people and cultures and countries, and caring about other people.
This leads to ideas like people should be free to move between different countries, and we should be helping those less fortunate, including in countries less fortunate.
How does the shape of Earth have anything to do with that?

This is also made quite clear when paranoid, delusional nutcases like you just keep asserting it without any justification.
If that BS was true, and you knew it was true, you would be able to justify it, to explain how the shape of Earth leads to globalism.
Instead you just continually assert it, demonstrating you have no idea.

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What keeps us on the ground

« on: May 04, 2025, 01:59:42 PM »

You do understand what acceleration is, don't you? It is a change in speed or direction. If the Earth were constantly accelerating upward its speed would increase without end, and it would soon be traveling at near the speed of light and would cross the entire universe in an eyeblink. This is just absurd. You cannot increase speed forever.

The only way acceleration can continue forever is by orbiting IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD.

Inertia is not a force holding us down. Inertia is just a word for Newton's first law of motion: An object in motion stays in motion unless acted on by a force, and an object at rest remains at rest unless acted on by a force. If inertia were all that was keeping us on the ground, then when you jump up you'd continue to go up. The reason you don't continue to go up is GRAVITY pulling you back toward the center of mass of the Earth.

Lastly, you propose that the Earth is constantly accelerating upwards. Where does the energy for this acceleration come from?

You do understand they are appealing to an interpretation of general relativity, where an object in free fall is considered to be in an inertial frame of reference, and Earth is round the surface is accelerating outwards in curved spacetime?

30

Flat Earth General / Re: Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

« on: May 03, 2025, 11:31:45 PM »

"We can't see that far! This image must be a lie!"

You are the one saying that.

The Earth is flat AND you can't see forever.

You keep saying this, but you have literally nothing to support it.
Meanwhile, there is plenty going against it.

You can however see farther than projected with your curvature theory

Again, you assert this, but are yet to provide a single example.

You can't see forever because of vanishing point, but "mirages" like these are real.

Yet as plenty of examples have shown, the vanishing point is NOT the horizon.
As basic geometry shows, the vanishing point is not some magical limit to vision.
It is infinitely far away.
The best you get from appealing to that is things being too small to resolve.

But look! Similar to a funhouse mirror, you have the sky curving what you see in the distance.

The sky does not curve things we see in the distance.

Instead they appear to sink into Earth.
Nothing like what your crap indicates.

No more waffling back and forth. As recent as two posts ago you contradicted yourself. Time for you to make sense.

Says the one that can't even be consistent on deciding if perspective or a magic parabola causes the sun to set.