1

Flat Earth General / Re: Eric Dubay Sucks - YouTube video debunking FE

« on: October 10, 2024, 03:42:44 AM »

This alone is absolutely right. If the Flat Earthers were allowed to fly without restriction over Antarctica, the matter would be closed. You fly straight down, and circle back north.

No, it wouldn't. Because most FEers wouldn't be able to afford such a flight, so it wouldn't settle it at all.
Those who could would just look for more excuses.
Remember, some FEers like to address this problem by fucking up the equator by adopting a bipolar model.

If Antarctica was enough to close this matter, the existence of the south celestial pole, always 180 degrees removed from the north celestial pole, and always due south, as a clear point to the south, would have settled it.
That is much more accessible to everyday people.

Bulma.  I included Jack in this for a second opinion.

For a lack of a better term.  The spherical earth turns back on its self for the southern pole.  Where FE splays it out.

Not only does the FE splaying out the southern hemisphere greatly increase distances, but it messes with relative position.  Notice how “west” changes and where Antarctica ends up relative to the circuit sailed from the most southern parts of South America to Australia to Africa back to South America.  Flaties don’t even have to travel to Antarctica.  The could just sail the listed route to prove beyond a doubt one way or another.




——VS——-





Bulma.  No wonder why flaties threat the southern hemisphere as a bastard child.

Fun fact, I have previously seen FEers use Captain Cook's second voyage like this to pretend Earth must be flat because it took too long and went too far for a RE, while ignoring it started in England, went around Africa, did a small loop and a large loop around the southern Pacific Ocean, then back to Africa (continuing east) and back to England.

But yes, they could do this, or even simpler, just measure the length along an arc between 2 points of longitude. With the FE monopole model, it should get larger the further south you go. With reality, it gets shorter away from the equator, so going south of the equator has it get shorter.

I also wouldn't appeal to "west".

2

Flat Earth General / Re: Eric Dubay Sucks - YouTube video debunking FE

« on: October 10, 2024, 03:24:11 AM »

Having heard his responses to various topics of FE, or your responses to his responses, I can definitely say that you have no honest response to them.

You can definitely say that, but it would be a blatant lie; just like so many other things you say.

Here's his response to "Why does a sailboat appear to disappear around a curve?"

Where he spouts delusional BS with no justification at all.
His argument is entirely circular reasoning.
"Earth must be flat. We see things disappear from the bottom up on Earth. So that must happen on a FE".

Notice what he entirely lacks? Any explanation for why.
He appeals to a magical "law of perspective", which entirely fails to explain this.

He then lies to everyone by claiming magic seeing devices allow you to see a ship after it has disappeared, and providing an example of an object still clearly before the horizon in view, where they then zoom out until you can't resolve it.
Notice they didn't show anything going over the horizon with the bottom disappearing, and then bringing the bottom back into view.

And then just appeals to his dead prophet Row Boat, with more lies, with no evidence supporting it at all.

He then appeals to angular resolution, which doesn't explain it at all. Because we use devices with better resolution, and still have the bottom missing.
There are plenty of images where the bottom has to be so far below the horizon it would easily be resolved.

He talks near the end about one guy who observed steamboats from a distance, and then proceeds to do the curvature math, and finds the curvature involved was something like 400 ft.

You mean he spouts a bunch of baseless BS?

Right before blatantly lying about telescopes yet again, and then appealing to his lying prophet yet again, where plenty of assumptions are made, no evidence is provided, and you get the numbers wrong.

He then appeals to "many other experiments", and showing some crappy pictures of them, where he entirely ignores the alleged results of those experiments contradict his prior claims.

Because lying POS like him don't care about consistency. They just care about pretending Earth is flat.

But again, notice what was entirely missing from the video? Any sane explanation of why the bottom of objects disappear.
This explanation needs to address when it should be still clearly resolvable, so the limits of resolution does not explain it.
And the BS of "Perspective" doesn't explain it either, as it baselessly asserts it happens.

Neither you, nor your lying prophet can honestly answer these questions.

You guys are so dishonest, with me, and with yourself. Rather than admitting that maybe your own perspective when seeing things is not in fact superhuman, you double down on things that are far more absurd.

And more projection from you.
Our arguments have nothing to do with us being super human. But more that light doesn't just magically die for no reason as that would violate conservation of energy.

Meanwhile, you double down on absurd, contradictory BS.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Has the world got peace after the formation of United Nation?

« on: October 09, 2024, 12:37:25 PM »

The UN is not responsible for pretty much any of what you have listed. Long before the UN existed all that was already happening.
I would more say the UN has failed to live up to its hype.

4

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What is a woman? plus Last Supper in Paris Olympics discussion.

« on: October 09, 2024, 12:34:28 PM »

No link then?

I’m shocked.

No link.
No need.
Again, an award given in a division created for participation is a participation award, no matter how much you want to avoid it.

5

Flat Earth General / Re: Eric Dubay Sucks - YouTube video debunking FE

« on: October 09, 2024, 12:33:14 PM »

But when you ask him about Flat Earth, he seems to have a decent head on his shoulders.

His head is in no way decent when it comes to that.
Just like you, he spouts blatant lies about what is expected in the RE model, and reality.

This alone is absolutely right. If the Flat Earthers were allowed to fly without restriction over Antarctica, the matter would be closed. You fly straight down, and circle back north.

No, it wouldn't. Because most FEers wouldn't be able to afford such a flight, so it wouldn't settle it at all.
Those who could would just look for more excuses.
Remember, some FEers like to address this problem by fucking up the equator by adopting a bipolar model.

If Antarctica was enough to close this matter, the existence of the south celestial pole, always 180 degrees removed from the north celestial pole, and always due south, as a clear point to the south, would have settled it.
That is much more accessible to everyday people.

Yeah, damned right I believe Eric Dubay on everything to do with Flat Earth.

Yes, because he is your cult leader.
Not because he is right, or has any rational arguments or evidence supporting his BS.
Just because you are desperate for Earth to be flat, so you accept his BS without thinking.

From the sound of his videos, he has heard all the arguments.

Yet has no honest response to them.

6

Flat Earth General / Re: what are flat earthers telling about Hurricane Milton that is happening now?

« on: October 09, 2024, 12:20:02 PM »

And when I get my Masters in Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, I'm be sure to tell you.

I'm not saying you need a degree. I'm saying if you were honest and intelligent and were rejecting a model because you wanted to adopt the truth, you should have a basic idea about these things, which you clearly don't.

But while we're on that topic, actual weather forecasters often get it wrong, so neither having a model, nor a fancy degree means you'll have the faintest idea which track it's heading.

They get the exact path wrong.
But they have a general idea of which way it is going, with different predictions providing slightly different paths.
This is because it is a chaotic system.

Why do meteorologists get it wrong?

Because it is a chaotic system which is highly sensitive to initial inputs.

7

Flat Earth General / Re: Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense

« on: October 09, 2024, 12:17:31 PM »

In optics, projection and reflection have distinct meanings related to light and images. Projection involves casting an image, light, or shadow onto a surface. It is the presentation of an image on a surface, like in a cinema. Reflection, however, is the bouncing back of light, heat, or sound after hitting a surface. It is the reason we see images in a mirror, involving the return of light to our eyes.

And notice how this doesn't match what you claim?

The light from the sun going through the atmosphere to our eyes is neither projection nor reflection.

If you understood the difference (and were honest) you wouldn't claim it is.

Again, if you want the "projection" of the sun, that is the illuminated region of Earth, i.e. half of it, and the sky around Earth.

8

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What is a woman? plus Last Supper in Paris Olympics discussion.

« on: October 09, 2024, 03:09:55 AM »

Bullshit.  You’ve invented your own personal definition for a very well defined term to try to weasel out of your insult.

If you can find just one article on the subject that matches your nonsense, I’ll eat my hat.

Not BS.
Again, you have league for participation, and then give awards to people in this participation league, making them awards for participation.

9

Flat Earth General / Re: what are flat earthers telling about Hurricane Milton that is happening now?

« on: October 09, 2024, 03:09:05 AM »

If you expect us to be prophets because of our theory, you are sorely mistaken.

We don't expect you or your prophets to have any answers.

But we would expect an honest, intelligent person who has rejected the mainstream model which works so well and adopted an alternative model, to be able to know issues with that alternative model and be able to address them to explain why that alternative model is better than the mainstream model.

But of course, that would assume people adopted it based upon wanting to adopt the truth; which clearly doesn't describe you.

Hurricanes are very common because tides have nothing to do with the moon.

So pure nonsense?

There are several fairly stable whirlpools across the world.
One's in Scotland (Corryvreckan)

And straight off the bat you appeal to a tidal whirlpool which relies upon the movement of large amounts of water to generate them, which comes and goes with the tides.
These are not stable whirlpools.
These are particular topographical features which lend themselves to the formation of whirlpools with large amounts of water flowing over due to tides.
And the direction they turn is based upon the topography.
This does nothing to address the issue raised.

What do you think happens when tidal zones combine?

A variety of different things.

NOAA says this is cause by Earth's rotation and warm water, but this would make hurricanes happen during the summer. And all the time, if the Earth constantly rotates.

Why?
If it was perfectly homogenous, then there would be none forming.

It's caused by influx of water of different pressures and temperatures. Some evaporates, some condensates, and this shifting creates turbulence.

None of which explain why it causes a hurricane.

10

Flat Earth General / Re: Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense

« on: October 09, 2024, 02:13:57 AM »

Bulma.  You don’t get the difference.  Do you.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do get the difference.

Yet you seem to fail spectularly.

Light passes through a glass lens to be displayed on a table. Projection.

And bounces off the table to reach your eyes. Reflection.

Light passes through atmosphere to be seen by humans. Projection.

Not projection, transmission.
There are no lenses to focus the light.
There are no screens to project on.
Projecting would be if you use a magnifying glass and focus the sun to produce an image of it.

The screen, the table, and the human eyes are destinations for light to be projected to. The eyes are a poor one, hence, do not look directly at the sun.

No, they aren't.
The screen and table are.
That is because they are nice large areas upon which an image can be projected, with the light hitting that surface then scattered to go out in all directions to be observed by the eye.

The eye is basically just a point.
If you are projecting onto that, you are really projecting onto a face.

Standing in front of the screen and looking directly at the projector is quite different to looking at the projected image on the screen.

Regardless, none of this is helping your BS.

Again, you still have no justification for how the sun in reality is not like a light going around a corner like the RE model would suggest.
You still have no explanation for sunsets in your delusional fantasy (including how the sun disappears before the sky being illuminated, and has the light casting upwards from below clouds just after sunset).
You have no explanation for how the sun (the sun, not the glare from it) keeps a roughly constant angular size throughout the day.

11

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

« on: October 09, 2024, 01:49:59 AM »

Genetic theology likes to make up this notion that all maladies are due to genes.  Just as previous centuries thought everything was demons.

Really? Straight off the bat you blatantly lie to everyone?
No, there are a variety of reasons.

Paranoid people, for instance, are subjects of frequent betrayal.

Are they? Or do they just continually feel that way because they view the world as betrayal?

I've heard of the latter, yes. DNA sequencing sometimes uses retroviruses to basically hack DNA so they can rip it apart and resequence it.

If you have heard of it, you have entirely misrepresented it.
But you seem to understand a key part of it and why it shows you are wrong.
The point is retroviruses are a relatively recent discovery, and updated evolutionary theory.
Retroviruses show the possibility of gene transfer which doesn't simply come from the parent.

It is true that we don't know what causes disease so we come up with things to fill the gaps.

Yes, you have a god of the gaps.

And they say it is caused by a demon.

And they were wrong.
Thanks for showing the pile of garbage you follow is wrong.

Science has told you that it has it all figured out, and that religion is just a bunch of backwards superstitions. Let's examine that.

No, it hasn't.
That is your strawman of it.
Science admits it does not know.
Such as admitting we don't know yet how the first life came to be and may never know.
You are not satisfied with that so you pretend to know, claiming your imaginary POS did it.

We were told COVID was a disease and not a psy-op.

Because it is a disease, caused by a virus.
Your wilful rejection of reality doesn't change that.

Yet despite people staying indoors, staying away from people, they got sick.

Care to provide a single documented example rather than just paranoid delusional BS?

Real science is the method by which we study the world created by God.

No, it isn't.
Real science doesn't invoke your imaginary POS because there is nothing scientific about it.

In The Discoverers, they mention how no culture but the Western (under Christianity) made such strides in science.

So they lied?

The Muslims (despite their advances in plagiarism) actually were against science to a large extent.

Just like the Christians, when science went against their delusional fantasies.

Why then, they ask, did Western culture make such strides in science?

Because they put religious BS aside and looked at reality.

We're pushing ourselves into a dead end

No, YOU and people like you are trying to push everyone there; clinging to outdated delusional BS and doing whatever you can to object to reality and progress.

12

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What is a woman? plus Last Supper in Paris Olympics discussion.

« on: October 08, 2024, 01:59:37 PM »

No.  You get a gold medal for winning, not participating, so it’s not a participation award. 

Your distain for female athletes does not change the definition that everyone else uses.

What distain? Again, I'm just being honest. Something you apparently hate doing.
A gold participation medal for "winning" the participation league, is still a participation award.

13

Flat Earth General / Re: Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense

« on: October 08, 2024, 01:58:36 PM »

That is not a projection.
That's called a reflection. Projection is through, reflection is back.

Do you really not comprehend basic English?
You project onto a screen, and see the reflection of that.

If you want to object, object to it being a specular reflection.

Now, with your regard to "Why doesn't the sun appear to shrink"?

Eric Dubay

Providing a link to a crappy video from your cult leader will not help you.
He repeatedly lies.

the sun DOES appear to shrink.

No, it doesn't, not by any significant amount.
You get the glare reducing, but with an appropriate filer or exposure setting to actually see the sun, it does not change in size over the course of a day by any significant amount.

Here is a hint, if the sun appears pure white, with no clearly defined edge, you have it over exposed, and are seeing glare and looking at the size of the glare.

You still after all of this time do not understand what a model is.

You don't even have a model. You have a crappy vague drawing you appeal to because you can't defend your idea.
It does not represent reality in any way.

It is a blatantly dishonest misrepresentation to pretend perspective will magically make the sun appear to set.
We see this with how they have made it so the 2 hour gap is approximately the same size, and then there is absolute no connection between that, and the "path of the apparent sun".
Do you know what an honest model would have? Lines connecting them, to show how perspective actually works.

FE con men like Dubay have no interest in a model, because it will easily show they are wrong.

14

Flat Earth General / Re: Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense

« on: October 08, 2024, 01:51:49 PM »

I am simultaneously dealing with my model and yours and yet managing to somehow not go insane.

I'm sure plenty of people would beg to differ.
You appear to be getting both models wrong, consistently.
You still haven't been able to defend your blatant misrepresentation of the RE model to explain how it doesn't match reality.
Nor have you been able to defend your model to make it match reality.

Be honest, what you are really dealing with is a pathetic strawman of the RE so you can pretend it doesn't match reality, and then spout vague crap to pretend your model does; all while being entirely incapable of answering trivial questions which show how wrong you are. Sometimes you even go one step further and provide a diagram which shows just how wrong YOU are.

And this post of yours is just another example of such pathetic crap:

Your model projects light through an ozone layer from 96 million miles away. The huge sun by your logic ought to look huger.

No. It is not projecting.
Again, projecting requires it to be focused onto a surface.
You don't project THROUGH something, you project ONTO something.

e.g. a data projector will project onto a screen. The further away the screen is, the larger the image that is projected. But if you stand at the screen, and look towards the projection, then the further away it is the smaller it will appear. It is only when you stop looking at the projector and instead look at the projected image that it gets bigger.

If you want to try pretending the sun is projecting light, then that projection would be the blue colour of the sky during the day. And guess what? That takes up the entire sky during the day.

So if you honestly think about the model it matches what is observed in reality.

this is absolutely not consistent with this expanding proection model.

So it is inconsistent with your pathetic strawman?

if we assume the sun is thousands of degrees and that light and heat never decay

When will you stop with this BS?
Stop trying to equate decay with spread out.
The light from the sun doesn't decay, it spreads out over a larger area.

My model involves a sun that is not that big, not that hot, and not that far away. The amount of visual stuff I have to deal with in a projection situation is not significant. My sun is 62 miles away or less, not 96 million (while also having a huge size and high temperature).

The amount of crap you need to deal with is quite a lot.
Your model involves a tiny sun that is very close. Reality involves a massive sun that is very far away.
Importantly, this makes a massive difference over the course of day.
For your broken model, the distance to the sun changes dramatically, which should mean the angular size changes dramatically and the angular speed should change dramatically.
In reality, the change in distance is negligible. e.g. over the course of a day (including going to midnight) it would change from 150 000 000 km, to 150 013 000 km (and that is an exaggeration).
And you have it even worse than most FEers who put the sun at a height of 5000 km.

We should observe massive changes in the sun. Yet we don't.

You then have the problem of explaining the angle of elevation to the sun, and how it magically casts light on something from below.

You appeal to a BS parabola to pretend to explain it, but that has been refuted countless times, with you apparently having no possible way to refute it, as you just keep ignoring it.

What for?

Because the change is distance is massive for your model.
At sun set, the sun is above a point roughly 10 000 km away. That is many times the height you claim the sun is at.

If the sun is a projection

There is absolutely no basis for it to be a projection.
And even if it was, the distance to that projection still changes, so you still have the problem.
And no, your parabola BS doesn't help, because it is a pile of refuted BS that you have made no attempt to defend.

the altitude of the real sun is such that I don't have to worry about it shrinking.

Quite the opposite.
The GREATER the altitude, then the less significant the change in distance, so the less significant the change in angular size.

In comparison, the sun should appear to shrink over the course of a year on RE as it varies by as much as 5 million miles from its farthest to nearest.

And try doing that honestly.
5 million km out of 150 million km.
That is 5 parts in 150, or 1 part in 30, or roughly 3%.
Compare that to your delusional BS.
We know the sun sets when it is above a point roughly 10 000 km away. Yet you have your sun roughly 100 km high.
That is 100 parts in 1 (ignoring the slight increase due to the diagonal) or 10000 %

That should result in a massive change.

You are objecting to 3%, while being perfectly fine with 10 000 %.

15

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

« on: October 08, 2024, 01:33:03 PM »

Not aloud. But unless you count epigenetics (I don't, part of Darwin's theory) or woke ideas about genes and social justice, there have been no new genetic theories in almost 200 years.

Have you not heard of sideways gene transfer?
Or retroviruses?

This means that what happened was that the scientific community taught it as settled science, and now we focus on DNA technology, effectively doing unnatural selection rather than continuing to question whether natural selection is in fact a valid description of how evolution works.

What is the point of questioning if you are never going to accept the answer?
Plenty of people have done plenty of experiments on evolution.

Evolution fails the "child's question" test.

No it doesn't, as it doesn't attempt to address it.
But more importantly, SO DOES YOUR GOD!

And no, you can't get out of it by saying God made itself, after all, how would it make itself before it existed to make itself?

So even with a god, you still reach the awkward point of "I don't know" or "Shut you heathen or you will be executed for heresy!!!"

And you are also incorrect. A bacteria is far too complex to be the first life.

The first form of life was likely a much much much more primitive cell. And people are still working on that.
But this is moving away from genes.
There is also the question of if it would have been protein first, or RNA first.

Most of the rest of the population (besides people like me, who don't work normal jobs) would be on lunch break.

Firstly, welcome to the world of time zones.
If you open their profile you can see their local time (assuming they have set it correctly and DST hasn't broken it).
They are 5 hours ahead of you.

Secondly, some people might use their lunch break to show the stupidity of people on the internet.

This means you are either in a vastly different time zone or you are basically on all day to respond.

God is not of the gaps.

Yes it is.
You have no actual basis to say it was a god.
You have no evidence it was a god.
Your god solves nothing.
Instead you have your wilful ignorance, where you then assert it MUST be a god.

There is an actual beginning point of creation that atheists have no account for.

That is your baseless claim.
There is no evidence to support the claim of creation.

See that purple line? That's your gap, not mine. You can't explain what came before that, how the purple line came about in the first place, nor what caused this Cambrian explosion. Truthfully, you can't explain anything.

That is the gap you are trying to fill with your imaginary fiend.
Instead of accepting that we don't know, you insert your god, with no rational basis at all.

Do you know what God of the gaps?
You have a gap, you can't explain, you insert god.
Filling that gap with god doesn't mean it isn't a god of the gaps.

If someone gave an explanation that worked, I'd accept it.

And when someone gave an explanation, like a god, that doesn't work, you still accept it.

Kid: Okay, that part makes sense. But what created God?
Me: (Explains theology)
You got any other questions?

Yes. You have entirely failed to explain why your god shouldn't need a creator but the universe does.
You still have a massive gap you cannot fill. A gap made much worse than the one you tried to fill with god.

And that is why you didn't bother actually answering the question in your pathetic example, and instead just left it as "(Explains theology)", because there is no answer.

Ultimately the question is why is there something rather than nothing?
Any thing you try to invoke to answer this question will be something and will just push the problem back, instead asking why is there this thing.
Ultimately, the only actual possible answer is no thing, i.e. nothing.
There can be no reason for why there is something rather than nothing, as any reason would be a something which needs an explanation.

You want to apply that to your god, but that just throws an extra useless step in.
Sane people recognise that, and either discard that extra step, or admit there is no basis to force that step in and have different reasons to believe.

Likewise, even if we want to just focus on life, that is really focusing on complexity. For this there are 2 options:
1 - Complex things can arise through natural processes from less complex things.
2 - Complex things must come from things as complex or more complex than themselves.

If option 1 is true, then abiogenesis and evolution are possible and there is no need for your god.
If option 2 is true, then your god must come from another god that created it, making it entirely useless.

Again, any "reason" you try to invoke the universe or life needing a creator, that will apply just as well to your god.
Any excuse you give for your god not needing a creator can apply equally to life and/or the universe.

16

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: PHEW IS OFFICIALLY VERIFIED

« on: October 08, 2024, 12:18:51 AM »

for 1 D and 2 D it's Phew = 3.17157
for 3 D it's Pi = 3.14159

Deal?

 

Correction:

for circumference, the constant is Phew = 3.17157

for circle area, the constant is Pi = 3.14159

for sphere area & sphere volume, the constant is Phew = 3.17157

Actual correction:
For circumference, the constant is pi.
For circle area, the constant is pi.
For sphere surface area and sphere volume, the constant is pi.

It is pi for all, as they are all related.

Only the best people accept Phew.
Jack, da ya wanna be part of da best people? Go phew. 

The best people recognise phew is delusional BS, that needs to flee from so much which shows it is wrong.

17

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What is a woman? plus Last Supper in Paris Olympics discussion.

« on: October 08, 2024, 12:17:04 AM »

The awards given to those who come top in their events, the gold silver and bronze medals are not participation awards.

For events where there are not restrictions, yes.
For events where you have set it up as a event for participation of an otherwise underrepresented group, they are participation awards.

18

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

« on: October 07, 2024, 02:49:20 PM »

What I guess I'm saying is that when you look at evolutionary theories, there were a pretty big number of these rival ideas, and then kinda "Oh Darwin has it figured out. We needn't bother anymore." It just sorta stops.

Yes, people trying to cling to their religion, where they don't want evolution to happen.

It was not "Oh Darwin figured it out".
Instead, it was the evidence supported that idea, and that idea was coherent.

And unfortunately, science is increasingly getting like that.

You mean it actually gets answers, supported by mountains evidence, which doesn't agree with your hopes and dreams?
That isn't a problem.

Yeah, except uhhhh guys that's not science.

Because you aren't even attempting to honestly represent it.
It is your strawman.
So no, your strawman isn't science.
But that isn't surprising.

Science is the study of the natural world through repeated testing. By definition, any time you've accepted a consensus, you have stopped testing and decided the group knows best.

No, it isn't that simple.

Science is about examining the natural world, coming up with hypotheses to try to explain what is occurring, making predictions based upon these hypotheses and then testing these predictions.
Then if you get a model that works, you try to find the limitation of those models, as well as putting the model to practical use.

We don't need to repeatedly test if Earth is round, because it is so heavily integrated into modern life.
Any time a plane goes on a flight, or a ship tries to cross an ocean, that is based upon the round Earth, using paths based upon a round Earth and technology based upon a round Earth.
Every time you take out your phone or other GPS enabled device to determine where you are, that is using technology based upon a round Earth.
Every time you decide to look up when sunrise or sunset will be, that is performing calculations based upon a round Earth.

If Earth wasn't round, so many problems would appear here.
If you like, you can consider those "tests".
e.g. every time someone uses GPS to navigate, they are "testing" if Earth is round.

Just like with computers, we have computers built, we don't need to repeatedly test what happens when we place different types of semiconductors together.

19

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What is a woman? plus Last Supper in Paris Olympics discussion.

« on: October 07, 2024, 02:39:54 PM »

Er, yeah. An award given just for participating, not for winning

Yes, an award given for participating rather than being the best.

The kind of awards that are often given to young children.

Remember the argument made to support it?
To allow this portion of the population to compete and to be role models for children.
But you are aware participation awards are given to people other than children?

20

Flat Earth General / Re: Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense

« on: October 07, 2024, 01:25:39 PM »

But it is projecting.

https://opticsmag.com/how-do-projectors-work/

Light passes through a transparent surface (glass in the former case, atmosphere in the latter case) and is then focused to a surface. We see a circular beam of light from the sun to the ground.

It is NOT projecting.
Notice a key part that is missing?
"then focused to a surface".

It is emitting light in all directions.
We see the coming from the sun as the sun. No projection involved.
We see the light hitting the atmosphere being scattered and then going to us.

Projecting would be focusing it so an image appears elsewhere. That is not occuring.

Deny and then shift to a bunch of questions that I have to field.

Not deny.
Explain that you are spouting BS, and then point out the simple questions you have fled from because you can't answer them.

And then tell me the reason that I can't answer is not because I don't have time, or don't feel like answering those... in this case four questions, but because your theory is right.

It is a combination of the 2nd and the third.
The RE model is correct, your delusional fantasy is not.
Because you have no interest in admitting that you aren't going to answer the questions because you have no answer which wouldn't just demonstrate that.
So you don't want to answer them.

So after being continually refuted you abandoned the topic and jumped to a new one; demonstrating a complete lack of integrity.

If you don't answer these questions you are basically just admitting to everyone that your model is a steaming pile of shit, you know of no faults with the RE model, and you are just lying to everyone.

So again:
Again, can you actually explain how the observed behaviour of the sun is inconsistent with the sun going around a corner?
Can you actually explain (including using the appropriate situation and not a different one) how the sun can't shine light up from below onto clouds just after sunset?
Can you explain how the sun can get too faint to be seen, while we can still see less direct light which has travelled a longer path and must be fainter?
Can you explain how the sun being above the clouds could ever shine light on them from below?

Should light appear to shrink or grow over distance?
1. If it shrinks, then likewise we can expect light to stop being visible over a vanishing point, as asserted previously.
2. If it grows, this is inconsistent with our view of the sun, the moon, and the stars. After all, you have told me in the past that the sun should appear to shrink, and now you're talking about projections growing and growing.

Your question is incoherent.
The area illuminated grows, which is why the intensity diminishes following an inverse square law (assuming no absorption or scattering etc), and the angular size of the light source diminished.

Again, the vanishing point is infinitely far away and has no part in this discussion.

So now stop deflecting and answer the questions:
Again, can you actually explain how the observed behaviour of the sun is inconsistent with the sun going around a corner?
Can you actually explain (including using the appropriate situation and not a different one) how the sun can't shine light up from below onto clouds just after sunset?
Can you explain how the sun can get too faint to be seen, while we can still see less direct light which has travelled a longer path and must be fainter?
Can you explain how the sun being above the clouds could ever shine light on them from below?

21

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

« on: October 06, 2024, 08:44:43 PM »

No, no, you don't understand.

No, I do understand. I just recognise you're spouting crap.

Abiogenesis is not part of evolution.
Evolution starts with life.
It does not care how it got there.

None of that helps demonstrate your imaginary fiend exists.

22

Flat Earth General / Re: Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense

« on: October 06, 2024, 03:30:22 PM »

Logically consistent would me saying

Logically inconsistent would be you saying that the sun disappears due to a magical parabola, then claiming it actually disappears because it just gets too far away and gets too dim.

Your delusional BS doesn't work.
Saying it is a projection doesn't address the massive faults with your BS.

Logically consistent would not be you saying that a sun filtering its light into the atmosphere (and thus projecting)

No, it isn't.
The sun shining light into the atmosphere, which causes light to scatter so it appears blue, is NOT saying it is projecting.

appears significantly smaller than 1,391,400 km at 96 million miles away

Based upon what?
Have you done the math, or are you just yet again spouting pure BS?

That's called saying one thing, and reality being different.

That's what YOU are doing.

You are yet to show how any of what I said fails to match reality.
Meanwhile I have explained how it does match reality, and how your delusional BS doesn't.

Again, can you actually explain how the observed behaviour of the sun is inconsistent with the sun going around a corner?
Can you actually explain (including using the appropriate situation and not a different one) how the sun can't shine light up from below onto clouds just after sunset?
Can you explain how the sun can get too faint to be seen, while we can still see less direct light which has travelled a longer path and must be fainter?
Can you explain how the sun being above the clouds could ever shine light on them from below?

No. You can't. You cannot explain how the RE doesn't match reality, nor can you explain how the FE does match reality.
And the simple reason why is because Earth is round.

23

Flat Earth General / Re: Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense

« on: October 06, 2024, 01:59:28 PM »

No, the point is, you ought to be logically consistent (and you aren't).

Wrong again.
We are logically consistent.
You are yet to demonstrate a single inconsistency. Instead you just repeat pathetic lies and run from the refutation of your BS.

It has been explained to you what that image is showing. You then decide to entirely ignore that and repeat the same pathetic BS.

Meanwhile, your position is inconsistent.
You can't even decide if it is perspective, your magic dome or just the sun getting too faint, which magically makes it vanish.

You claim the RE couldn't possibly have the sun shine on a cloud from below, because the sun is above the cloud; which is entirely inconsistent with the RE model, where from the POV of the cloud, the sun can be above or below, as relative to Earth (and the cloud) the sun circles, going above and below.
But what is more inconsistent is how you then entirely ignore that when it comes to your ridiculous BS; where in the FE that argument does apply.
In your FE fantasy, the sun is always above the clouds, and there is no way for it to shine on the clouds from below.

No, I'm not trying to change the subject. I'm trying to tell you that you're being inconsistent.

Yes, you are.

It has been repeatedly explained how the RE does allow the sun to shine on the bottom of the clouds, and how it is impossible for the FE.
Yet now you don't want to talk about it?
It has been repeatedly explained how the appearance of the sun and sky at sunset matches a light going around a corner; and how it is entirely incompatible with both perspective and the sun simply getting too far and so too far to see.
Likewise, it has been explained how your parabola BS doesn't work at all.

You ran out of excuses, so you now change topic entirely to solar eclipses, to yet again lie about the RE model to pretend it doesn't work.

I will let you decide. If the sun is a projection, does it look bigger or smaller at a distance?

That depends on what kind of projection and how that changes with distance.
If it is projecting onto a dome, then increasing distance from that point it is projecting on will make it appear smaller.
However, assuming it projects in a standard way, a greater distance between what is doing the projecting and the dome will make it appear larger.

But as a projection onto a dome would be visible to everyone who could see that point of the dome, that would mean for these observers the distance between the source and the dome is the same, and only the distance between observers change; so it should appear smaller for more distant observers.

But with your pure magic projection, which is entirely incompatible with any form of reality, it can do whatever it wants.
It can magically go bigger then smaller then change into a square, then a unicorn, then a rhino which charges you and impales you and so on.
That is because in the realm of pure magic, it can do anything.

So going back to the point you made at the start of that post:
YOU SHOULD BE CONSISTENT.

The RE is. The arguments I have put forward are.
The FE, and the arguments you have put forward are not. You directly contradict yourself, and directly contradict what your images show.

24

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

« on: October 06, 2024, 01:44:20 PM »

A few. As in, not enough to make anything of merit.

As in you just want to dismiss it because you don't like it and are desperate to cling to your imaginary fiend.

Did your soup make a puppy? Did it spontaneously even make an amoeba?

The idea is to make simple life. Not complex life.

And remember the timescale. This primordial soup had billions of years to do it.

A. Either it is a failure, as there is no design behind it,
B. Or it is a success, because someone brewed the soup according to a working recipe.

i.e. you will just arbitrarily reject it at all costs.

Simple as that. And that is what proves Intelligent Design. In order to make any of this work, Intelligence made a Design.

So you are saying your dishonest rejection of reality proves intelligent design?

Before we even talk about primordial soup, it wouldn't be able to make anything without bonds.

And bonds form spontaneously, with no intelligence required.

Do you get to decide what is and isn't meant by a word?

No.
Just like you don't.
Again, recreating conditions to see what happens is not designing the outcome.

intelligent design
noun
1. The belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result chiefly from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance and other undirected natural processes.
2. The purposeful design perceived in the universe or one of its parts and attributed to such a being.

Do you see the word "God" in this?

Did you bother reading it at all?
Notice key parts:
"Purposeful design"
"Rather than from chance and other undirected natural processes"

So if you just place a bunch of chemicals together to see what happens, that is not purposeful design. That is not by chance.

And human beings doing this now does not mean it is the only way it could have happened. Especially when those humans are recreating conditions on early Earth.

If humans can recreate conditions to show what happens in those conditions, that means those conditions occurring naturally, i.e. without intelligence behind it, can result in the same outcome.
i.e. no need for intelligence.

If your best argument is humans making the experiment to test it, then you have no argument.

Also, they assume somehow that chance or natural processes are outside the domain of God.

No, they just don't invoke a magical being when there is no reason to.

This is a God who makes the tornadoes, and the grasses grow.

Prove it.

Wasn't the entire point of your bringing up this BS to pretend your imaginary fiend exists?
Now you are just baselessly asserting it exists to try to justify you pretending it does.
That is entirely circular.

But you can't say he doesn't exist, not without lying. There surely was a cause for the tornado hitting it.

Sure I can.
There is no evidence for its existence at all.
There is no reason for thinking it exists.

All your BS does is push the problem.
If you want to say there must be a cause for these natural processes, and the underlying physical laws driving them; then why shouldn't this apply for your imaginary POS as well?
All the arguments for the universe needing a creator applies equally to your god.
So if the universe needs a creator, so does your god.
At that point your god is entirely useless, as whatever created your god could just create the universe directly.

This leads to an infinite regress of entirely useless beings.
There is no reason to think any of them exist.

DNA is a code.

Made of chemicals.
Chemicals, which spontaneously react.

Like you do all the time. You and Data think I'm being stupid while you deny painfully obvious things and push nonsensical things

No, we don't. You are projecting again.

You deny so painfully obvious things, and push pure nonsense, and then flee from the refutation of your BS.
For example, in the other thread, where you push the pure nonsense that your eyes can magically tell what is moving, which leads to delusional BS like thinking when you are driving down a highway the entire universe is moving around with you stationary; and the pure nonsense that the sun simply getting further away will result in it keeping the same angular size and magically disappearing from the bottom up; while denying the painfully obvious thing of the behaviour of the sun instead being entirely consistent with the sun going around a corner and being blocked from view.

i.e. how is your god meant to exist without someone creating it?

I don't ask what created God

Because you don't want to.
You want to assert it exists, and stop there.

Because it shows how intellectually bankrupt your claim is.

Saying crap like "it is beyond our thinking" is just a pathetic cop out.
Why not apply the same BS to abiogenesis? Or basically anything else you appeal to to pretend your imaginary POS needs to exist?

Again, if the universe needs a creator, so does your imaginary POS. So what created it?

And do you know the big difference? We know what created your god. Primitive men, who created as an idea to explain what they couldn't and to control other people.

25

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

« on: October 06, 2024, 01:21:52 PM »

I told you this long ago, so now you want to see proof of it?

And I called you out on it long ago.
And you failed to provide to provide evidence long ago.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why care if the earth is flat?

« on: October 06, 2024, 01:18:02 PM »

You’ve proven my point.

No, I have explained why your point is pure BS, and you keep lying to everyone.

They’ve told you that space is an endless area around a ball Earth, and will never prove their bs story is crap by sending rockets straight up until they hit the Firmement

You mean they will never prove your delusional BS, as there is no firmament to collide with.

There are mountains of evidence that rockets go to space, including the type that you demanded, which you then dismissed.

Note, there is nothing blue between us and the rocket, only blue seen above the rocket.

Repeating the same lie wont help you.
The sky is not a solid opaque blue.

The black space must be lower than our blue skies, it’s black right beside the rocket, but we can’t see any black at all there!

It isn't black space. It is space without an atmosphere scattering light making it appear blue.

Now again, you have failed to provide any reason why someone would lie by claiming Earth is round. But you have provided ample reason why people would lie about the existence of God, to control you, as they have already done.

27

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

« on: October 06, 2024, 04:00:23 AM »

You’d believe

Stop deciding what I would or would not believe. You have lied about that repeatedly.

Provide your evidence that they claimed that.
Or the article clearly showing it is a hoax it is another lie of yours.

Remember that they were the same clowns who claimed this bs about Saturn

You mean the same same astronomers, who claimed things which have been supported by plenty of evidence which you dismiss because it doesn't fit in your delusional fantasy?

who always claimed to see forests and cities on the moon with the same telescopes as Saturn claims later on.

Prove it.

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why care if the earth is flat?

« on: October 06, 2024, 03:58:47 AM »

That passage is very clear

To some yes, to others, who want to cling to their religion while pretending it doesn't contradict reality, it isn't.

Some bozos just revised it into nonsense that cannot hold waters, because they corrupted their twisted version of the Bible.

And with this, you basically admit you are a lying POS.
You know there are different interpretations, but you ignore them all to pretend your interpretation must be what the person who chose that passage meant; and that they couldn't have meant the much more common interpretation.

If space was true, it would be mentioned all over in the Bible.

Why would it be? The Bible is full of errors. Not everything true is in the Bible, and plenty in the Bible is not true.


The Bible is crappy book written ages ago by a bunch of primitive people to control primitive fools.
i.e. the very thing you are accusing the RE of being used for.

And it had worked quite well, with religion having such power and control.

And it even still controls you.
i.e. the very thing you appear to be terrified of the RE doing, your little cult has already done to you.
Is that why you came up with all this crap? Because your cult leaders wanted to keep control, and needed to provide a scape goat so you didn't suspect them?

29

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

« on: October 06, 2024, 03:54:22 AM »

Look at the best videos which do show two rings,,not the ones which blur everything.

Why don't you provide one to comment on?

Or address the comments I have already made?

Look at the clearest videos, then you’ll see the rings but one blurry belt. It’s not possible at all

It is entirely possible, as already shown.
The rings are primarily visible because they stick out to the sides, yet when overlapping the planet, get blurred out. Generally what you actually see is the shadow of the rings causing an apparent separation.

And the more distinct the change, the easier it is to see and harder it is to have blurred out. That is why decent text is high contrast.

30

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

« on: October 06, 2024, 03:36:07 AM »

You clearly said the video isn’t valid because it was shot with an iPhone, and put online, yes?

My words are posted here already.
Why don't you go find them and get the exact quote.

You never said that about all the other videos at all.

Which means nothing.

So you believe an iPhone blurred out multiple distinct belts into one big blurry belt, while leaving the two distinct rings as two distinct rings?
Or maybe the iPhone partly blurred out the multiple belts and the rest was blurred out when it was put online, while again leaving the two distinct rings intact?
And all the other videos blurred out the multiple belts into one blotchy belt, but also left the two rings intact, except now it’s because they all used crappy telescopes? Not from being put online for those clips?

Have you even bothered looking at those videos to see what the rings look like?
The main reason you can tell there are rings, is because they stick out to the side.
And for most, you do not see distinct rings.

e.g. if you look at crap from a P900, you can get this:

You cannot tell how many rings there are.


And if you cut off the sides to get this:

then you can't even see where the rings are.

Through a telescope, you might see something like this:

Where you might just be able to make it out at the far edges, but it is not clearly separated.
And if you just focus on the part where the ring crosses the planet you can't tell where the ring ends and the planet starts:


At least not until the video has had the frames taken, stacked and processed to produce this:

Where you can also see some of the banding.

And you can also use this:
https://www.tiktok.com/@cosmic_background/video/7321829895707921707
Where they show a comparison between an iPhone through the eye piece, an astronomy camera, and the image stacked and processed.

And another example:
https://www.tiktok.com/@cosmic_background/video/7271367383447653675

Any other lies you want to spout?

You’ll eventually see there’s no multiple distinct belts on Saturn.

Except there is already mountains of evidence showing there are distinct belts.
So that is another lie from you.

Compare what they claimed to see on the moon

Provide a valid citation.

The best I can find so far is one like this:
https://blog.library.si.edu/blog/2013/08/28/great_moon_hoax_1835/
Clearly describing it as a hoax written by someone else.

There certainly is abundant evidence that more than proves they lied.

Then why aren't you providing it?
Why are you instead appealing to pathetic crap and lying about it?

Your evidence

Again, YOU are the one who needs evidence.