Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Timeisup

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 51
1
Where have I misrepresented the experts?
Where haven't you?

You speak about being off topic! I speak about methods for calculating the value of C
No, you go on with your crazed obsession regarding experts, in many different threads.

If we can go back to the topic, how would you attempt to discover if the speed of light had in fact gone beyond its current accepted value.
That is not the issue.
The issue is if an object had exceeded the speed of light, and like I said, you don't need to measure either speed to determine which is faster.

Ah so you donít actually know where you imagine Iíve misrepresented them. I thought as much.

How would you be able to tell if an object or light itself had exceeded the accepted value if C. I doubt you would have the slightest idea how to accomplish this. The best you can do is just blow hot air well below light speed.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eratosthenes
« on: November 20, 2021, 03:32:55 PM »
In your opinion his experiment did not go to proving the earth was a sphere. For other people it did.
In the opinion of the experts I cited, he measured the circumference of Earth, not prove it was round.
Mathematically, the experiment does not prove Earth is a sphere.

In your baseless opinion which you refuse to substantiate, he proved it was a sphere.

Your opinion is just that,  your opinion, it does not magically take on some higher truth just because itís what you believe.

Again, people falsely claiming this experiment proves Earth is round is what makes FEers talk about, and people like stubbornly acting like it is proof just strengthens the position of FEers.

Flat earther believe the earth is flat because they are bonkers and not because of  any particular experiment. Regardless of what evidence they are presented with they will still hang on to their belief. Science and evidence are of no value to a flat earth believer.

The experiment is not false. On what basis do you make that claim?

It has been explained clearly in many references how he calculated the circumference of a spherical earth, whatís not to like?

It was a simple easy to follow experiment that produced a remarkably accurate result for its time that is not far off the actual known value.

What about the experiment do you have an issue with? It must be something as this 2000 year old experiment has certainly  got you hot under the collar despite it being of little real significance today.

3
You have proved nothing
Apart from a simple explanation of how one can determine the shape of Earth rather than just accepting what an expert says it is; a simple question which exposes the massive problem of the claim you have chosen to defend, a rock solid argument you are yet to even attempt to refute, and repeated explanations of why you are wrong with you repeated strawmanning.

Proof requires evidence
Proof requires a logical argument, which I have provided.
Specifically a proof by contradiction.
Conversely you have provided neither evidence nor a logical argument. Instead you just provide pathetic strawmen and dumb questions.

As I said you have changed your tune
I know you have lied. You do it often.
But you repeating the lie doesn't make it true.

Like I said, grow up and deal with the argument which proves you are wrong. Either admit you are wrong, or point which part of the argument you think is wrong:
1 - The only way to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth is by obtaining it from an expert on the shape of Earth.
2 - Thus without an expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth.
3 - You must have knowledge on the shape of Earth to be an expert on the shape of Earth.
4 - By 2 and 3, without an existing expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible for new people to become experts on the shape of Earth.
5 - At some point in the past there was no expert on the shape of Earth.
6 - By 4 and 5, this means it is impossible for anyone to become an expert on the shape of Earth.
7 - Thus there can be no experts on the shape of Earth.
8 - Thus no one can know the shape of Earth.
9 - People know the shape of Earth.
10 - 8 and 9 are direct contradictions and thus the assumption (1) MUST be wrong.

You might think you have produced a logical argument but I donít agree. All you keep doing is repeating yourself.

Your so called logic is nothing short of made up bonkers mumbo jumbo.

You appeared to accept what experts had to say about Eratosthenes with no problem so whatís the difference in accepting expert opinion about other things including the shape of the earth? What does your cackhanded logic say about that?
Dismissing what experts have to say on a subject is rather odd don't you think. It leads me to believe you would rather take the opinions of the ignorant over that of people who know about the subject in question in some depth.

Iím not wrong letís be clear about that. Once more itís about you imagining what you happen to believe is correct. In this case you are not.

Just admit you are wrong. There is no way you could determine the shape of the earth on your own using a novel method and without recourse to expert assistance. If you could you would have provided it.

I doubt you could do anything of any scientific merit without recourse to expert assistance.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eratosthenes
« on: November 20, 2021, 12:48:50 PM »
You want to know what the historical educated opinion is regarding Eratosthenes, go look it up
I did, and it doesn't support you.
He didn't prove Earth was a sphere.
I even provided plenty of references that show that.

So if you want to claim he proved Earth was a sphere, you back it up.
Otherwise, you can admit you are wrong when you claimed that.
(and regardless admit you were wrong when you claimed you claimed nothing)

You appear to be saying that by calculating the circumference of the earth, which at that time was already known to be spherical, is not akin to putting the final nail of proof into that long dead question.
No, it isn't.
If the question was long dead and it was settled that Earth is round, it isn't proving it is round, and plenty more nails can come down into that long dead; like photos of Earth from space.

So no, that doesn't mean he proved Earth was a sphere.

It is only pedantic individuals like yourself and FE believers that will deny any evidence
You are the one denying evidence and falsely claiming he proved Earth was round.
It is this blatant denial of reality by REers such as yourself which gives strength to the FE position.
It is this dishonest claim that Eratosthenes proved Earth is a sphere, that causes FEers to focus on it and explain that it doesn't.
And again this gives strength to the FE position, because they can show the REers are wrong.

All you are doing with your denial is further supporting FEers.

His experiment was both clever and accurate and did in fact calculate the circumference of the spherical earth that agreed with all the other observations. If you feel unable to accept that then again thats your pedantic choice.
And more dishonest BS.
Where have I ever indicated I don't accept that?
That was the very fact I pointed out.
His experiment was to determine the size of the spherical Earth.
That is not proving Earth is a sphere.

In your opinion his experiment did not go to proving the earth was a sphere. For other people it did.

Your opinion is just that,  your opinion, it does not magically take on some higher truth just because itís what you believe.

Itís all rather academic as the earth is a sphere of sorts, the sun is indeed a long way away and light rays can be taken as parallel.
Case closed.

5
The other mystery is why you keep posting the same nonsense over and over gain as it is totally irrelevant the issue.
You sure do love projecting don't you?

I keep posting an argument that clearly proves the claim is pure BS, which you refuse to even attempt to show is wrong.
And that means it is quite relevant to the issue.
And if it was nonsense it would be trivial for you to refute.

Conversely, you keep posting the same stupidity, which has nothing to do with the issue, and asking the same dumb question.

What! are you bonkers do you not understand the concept of 'expert'
Referring to an existing experiment IS consulting an expert.
The only one who seems to not understand things here is you.

Again, the original claim is not simply getting help from an expert.
It is specifically just accepting what the subject matters say the shape of Earth.
Them providing you with an experiment to perform and you performing that experiment is not you simply reading and accepting what they say Earth is.
You independently coming up with an experiment someone has done before, rather than an entirely new experiment, doesn't even mean you needed to consult experts.

So all your pathetic arguments down this path are entirely irrelevant to the issue.

At no point is one being told
And that is the point, and that alone is enough to destroy the original claim you have chosen to defend.

you gave the impression that you had developed some secret method that you were unwilling to share
No, I never did that.
That was your repeated dishonest strawman because you can't honestly deal with what I have actually said.

And like so often, you just spout blatant lies about me, rather than providing anything to support it.
And before you try to defend that by appealing to "impression", that doesn't save you; not unless you want the statement that you have given the impression that you think Earth is actually a pineapple, to be consider not lying. You are dishonestly misrepresenting my position because you cannot refute what I have actually said.

now you appear to be saying if you follow a previously conducted experiment it amounts to not using expert assistance
And that is another blatant misrepresentation from you.

If you independently come up with an experiment and conduct it, that means you are not using expert assistance. Some expert doing the experiment before doesn't magically mean you have obtained their assistance.

Again, the point is that we do not need a novel experiment; and I have never claimed such a novel experiment.

Ill state agin there is no way you could prove the shape of the earth without requiring the intervention of experts
And if that is the case, and one needs proof of the shape of Earth to be an expert, then no one could ever prove the shape of Earth.

Now again, deal with the argument that shows you have been spouting BS this entire time:
1 - The only way to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth is by obtaining it from an expert on the shape of Earth.
2 - Thus without an expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth.
3 - You must have knowledge on the shape of Earth to be an expert on the shape of Earth.
4 - By 2 and 3, without an existing expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible for new people to become experts on the shape of Earth.
5 - At some point in the past there was no expert on the shape of Earth.
6 - By 4 and 5, this means it is impossible for anyone to become an expert on the shape of Earth.
7 - Thus there can be no experts on the shape of Earth.
8 - Thus no one can know the shape of Earth.
9 - People know the shape of Earth.
10 - 8 and 9 are direct contradictions and thus the assumption (1) MUST be wrong.

You have proved nothing apart from you propensity to repeat yourself.

Proof requires evidence and you have given precisely  none because there is none you can give. Your pseudo kackhanded logic cuts no ice and is a pointless waste of time.

You like everyone else depends on experts for your very existence take them away and you would be lost. Your life depends upon them.

As I said you have changed your tune going back on your claim to have some secret method because you have realised it does not exist so you hang on pathetically to the claim that doing a repeat of a previous experiment thought up by another is somehow expert free!

No doubt your next post will just be another repeatÖ.. why bother?

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eratosthenes
« on: November 20, 2021, 03:41:43 AM »
The problem is you consider any one who disagrees with you a liar.
No, I consider those who lie about what I have said, or lie about what they have said to avoid admitting they are wrong, liars.
Disagreement is not enough.

The historical record plainly states that Eratosthenes is credited with proving the earth is a sphere.
Prove it.
Especially considering you have made it clear that you didn't think he proved Earth was a sphere and noted that history credits him as calculating the circumference of Earth.

Your word that the historic record says something is worthless.

For example, wikipedia states:
"He is best known for being the first person known to calculate the circumference of the Earth" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erastosthenes
"Eratosthenes performed an experiment using the differences in the observed angle of the Sun from two different locations to calculate the circumference of the Earth."
"Eratosthenes, a Hellenistic astronomer from Cyrenaica (276Ė194 BC), estimated Earth's circumference" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

Britannica states:
"who made the first measurement of the size of Earth for which any details are known." - https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eratosthenes
"Eratosthenes (3rd century BCE), however, is considered to be one of the founders of geodesy because he was the first to describe and apply a scientific measuring technique for determining the size of Earth" - https://www.britannica.com/science/geoid

Encyclopedia.com states:
"His most enduring work was in geography (particularly notable is his measurement of the circumference of the earth)"
"Eratosthenes is credited with being the first person to have calculated the Earthís circumference." - https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/literature-and-arts/classical-literature-biographies/eratosthenes
"Eratosthenes of Cyrene (276-194 b.c.) accurately measured the Earth's circumference." - https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/eratosthenes-calculates-circumference-earth

Conversely, we can see regarding Aristotle:
"Aristotle (384Ė322 BC) was Plato's prize student and "the mind of the school".[51] Aristotle observed "there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions." Since this could only happen on a curved surface, he too believed Earth was a sphere "of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent." (De caelo, 298a2Ė10)

Aristotle provided physical and observational arguments supporting the idea of a spherical Earth" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

Notice the difference in terminology.

And this one is great too:
"It has actually been known that the Earth was round since the time of the ancient Greeks. I believe that it was Pythagoras who first proposed that the Earth was round sometime around 500 B.C. As I recall, he based his idea on the fact that he showed the Moon must be round by observing the shape of the terminator (the line between the part of the Moon in light and the part of the Moon in the dark) as it moved through its orbital cycle. Pythagoras reasoned that if the Moon was round, then the Earth must be round as well. After that, sometime between 500 B.C. and 430 B.C., a fellow called Anaxagoras determined the true cause of solar and lunar eclipses - and then the shape of the Earth's shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse was also used as evidence that the Earth was round.

Around 350 BC, the great Aristotle declared that the Earth was a sphere (based on observations he made about which constellations you could see in the sky as you travelled further and further away from the equator) and during the next hundred years or so, Aristarchus and Eratosthenes actually measured the size of the Earth!" - https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question54.html

So what sources are you using? Quora?

Calling me a liar and proclaiming what I said is BS flies in the face of the accepted facts.
I called you a liar as you directly lied.
You falsely claimed he proved Earth was a sphere.
Then when called out you deflected, and even going as far to claim that you claimed nothing.

Now do you admit to claiming he proved Earth is a sphere, showing your claim that you claimed nothing to be a lie?


itís a false claim to think that experiment Eratosthenes made along with all the other observations made at that time did NOT prove the earth was a sphere.
Likewise, it's a "false claim to think that measuring a table, along with all the observations that have been made did not prove the Earth was a sphere."

You want to know what the historical educated opinion is regarding Eratosthenes, go look it up I take it you have access to the internet. It's no secret. No doubt you will think they are all liars as Im just repeating what they have concluded.

You appear to be saying that by calculating the circumference of the earth, which at that time was already known to be spherical, is not akin to putting the final nail of proof into that long dead question. It is only pedantic individuals like yourself and FE believers that will deny any evidence calling on bendy light and a small near sun to cast illogical doubt on the actual truth. The very fact the FE society still exists rather proves that point.

His experiment was both clever and accurate and did in fact calculate the circumference of the spherical earth that agreed with all the other observations. If you feel unable to accept that then again thats your pedantic choice.





7
I stand by what I said.
Then point out exactly what is wrong with this argument. Until you do, you have no ground to stand on and nothing you say will change it:
1 - The only way to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth is by obtaining it from an expert on the shape of Earth.
2 - Thus without an expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth.
3 - You must have knowledge on the shape of Earth to be an expert on the shape of Earth.
4 - By 2 and 3, without an existing expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible for new people to become experts on the shape of Earth.
5 - At some point in the past there was no expert on the shape of Earth.
6 - By 4 and 5, this means it is impossible for anyone to become an expert on the shape of Earth.
7 - Thus there can be no experts on the shape of Earth.
8 - Thus no one can know the shape of Earth.
9 - People know the shape of Earth.
10 - 8 and 9 are direct contradictions and thus the assumption (1) MUST be wrong.

To discover the true shape of the earth today in 2021
Again, unless something has magically changed, for example, there no longer being any possible way to obtain evidence that Earth is round; then "today" is irrelevant.

You imagining you could somehow independently come up with a novel method and perform said experiment with no expert support is extremely unlikely verging on the impossible.
Again, do you understand English? Because you really seem to be failing hard.

Here is the statement you have chosen to defend:
"The only thing you could possibly do to understand the shape of the Earth is to study from the current literature on what the subject matter experts say the Earth is."
Again, this is saying the only way you can find out what the shape of Earth is is to go and see what an expert says it is and then just accept it.

This means that if you can obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth, by consulting an experiment on how to conduct an experiment for you to determine the shape of Earth yourself, rather than simply accepting the expert telling you it is round, then the statement IS WRONG!

Get it through your stubborn head that we are under no obligation to meet your pathetic strawmen.
We do not need to come up with something entirely novel.
We don't even need to come up with an experiment ourselves.
All that is required for the statement to be wrong, is for us to be able to determine the shape of Earth without NEEDING an expert to tell us it is round.

The problem is you don't want to address the actual issue you have chosen to defend, because that would require admitting you are wrong; and you seem to be incapable of that.
So instead you continually deflect with pathetic strawmen.

Grow up.
Stop spamming your pathetic strawmen which are nothing more than you dishonestly pretending you aren't wrong when everything shows you are.
Like I said, point out exactly what is wrong with the argument I presented, as that shows the claim is pure BS.
And once you have done that, go and explain why the experiment I suggested doesn't show the claim is pure BS.

The fact of the matter is you canít answer the question which is why you continue to post the same irrelevant garbage over and over again.
And more of your pathetic projection and deflection.
You are the one who can't answer a simple question.
A very simple question which so clearly demonstrates the claim is pure BS.
You are the one spamming the same irrelevant garbage over and over again, repeatedly dishonestly strawmanning those who have shown you are wrong.

Present your experiment then this discussion can be brought to a close, refuse then you loose the argument.
And more pathetic projection.
The burden is on you.
You have been presented with a irrefutable argument that clearly shows you are wrong.
You refuse to engage with it.
Until you actually engage, you lose.
I am under no obligation to answer your strawmen.

So again, grow up, and either tell us what point in this argument you disagree with and why and what it should be, or you are wrong. Until you can show a problem with this argument you will continue to be wrong. And no amount of BS strawmanning will save you.
1 - The only way to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth is by obtaining it from an expert on the shape of Earth.
2 - Thus without an expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth.
3 - You must have knowledge on the shape of Earth to be an expert on the shape of Earth.
4 - By 2 and 3, without an existing expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible for new people to become experts on the shape of Earth.
5 - At some point in the past there was no expert on the shape of Earth.
6 - By 4 and 5, this means it is impossible for anyone to become an expert on the shape of Earth.
7 - Thus there can be no experts on the shape of Earth.
8 - Thus no one can know the shape of Earth.
9 - People know the shape of Earth.
10 - 8 and 9 are direct contradictions and thus the assumption (1) MUST be wrong.

You really are getting your panties in a right old twist. This is what you say:-

"Get it through your stubborn head that we are under no obligation to meet your pathetic strawmen.
We do not need to come up with something entirely novel.
We don't even need to come up with an experiment ourselves.
All that is required for the statement to be wrong, is for us to be able to determine the shape of Earth without NEEDING an expert to tell us it is round"

What! are you bonkers do you not understand the concept of 'expert'

Referring to an existing experiment IS consulting an expert. For you to do it unaided without expert assistance you would of course have to produce a novel never used original experiment, otherwise you would just be conducting an experiment based on expert guidance.

IF you were following a recipe in your kitchen to make a dish you would be preparing that dish according to expert advice.
IF you were conducting an experiment on the shape of the world using instructions produced from a previous experiment, you of course would be using expert advice. At no point is one being told, but you are of course relying on the knowledge and expertise of another.

If you were to repeat the Eratosthenes experiment you would be relying on a chain of experts including historians and translators. No one has to tell you anything but none the less you are still relying on the intervention of experts.

You appear to have changed your tune as at one point you gave the impression that you had developed some secret method that you were unwilling to share, now you appear to be saying if you follow a previously conducted experiment it amounts to not using expert assistance even although it was an expert who designed said experiment. Why would they be considered an expert? They would have to be an expert to devise and carry our a successful experiment as any experiment would require a measure of expertise in a range of disciplines.

The fact of the matter or the truth, as you say you like truth, is that you have no novel method and any experiment you carried out would have to be done on the shoulders of some other expert either dead or alive.

The other mystery is why you keep posting the same nonsense over and over gain as it is totally irrelevant the issue.

Ill state agin there is no way you could prove the shape of the earth without requiring the intervention of experts either alive, dead, present speaking in your ear or remote through some previously published text. What ever floats your boat. As for you developing your own method....not a chance.


8
All you do is regurgitate what information has been spoon fed to you, and that is the truth.
All you do is spout pure BS to pretend you are better than everyone else. Trying to pretend all the experts back you up, even though you typically blatantly misrepresent them.

You hate thinking so much you don't even seem to realise you can determine which of 2 objects is faster, without knowing how fast each is going.

Where have I misrepresented the experts? Just because you say so does not make it a fact. It's just another  vacuous thing you say.

You speak about being off topic! I speak about methods for calculating the value of C in a thread on light and its speed, you object then launch into a personal attack rather than addressing the point.

At no point did I infer I was better than anyone else, in fact its just the opposite. You claim to be able to perform all sorts of things while I freely admit to having to rely on all sorts of experts for my information. For that I conclude that you are the one that feels they are superior. In fact you accused me of being spoon fed information, a fact I freely admit you have to make your mind up there as I can't both be spoon fed and feel superior!. Everything I know regarding science I have learned from experts. You on the other hand make unsubstantiated claims that you have somehow discovered all manner of things by yourself unaided.

If we can go back to the topic, how would you attempt to discover if the speed of light had in fact gone beyond its current accepted value. In fact how would you attempt to do any experimentation of finding its speed. You Pal says its quite a simple thing to do.

9
This thread is about light speed
Specifically about if an object is capable of exceeding the speed of light.
As such actually measuring the speed of light is quite irrelevant unless you are trying to claim you have an observation of an object going faster than light.

Do you have such a claim?

How would you know if the speed C was exceeded if you didnít know what the actual speed C was?

Basically you have no clue about the speed of light other than what you have gleaned from experts on that particular area. You know nothing about it other than what you have read. You have no way of proving either experimentally or by some mathematical route what the value of C is and if it were possible under any circumstance to exceed the value. All you do is regurgitate what information has been spoon fed to you, and that is the truth.

How would you measure the speed of light?

10
You digress and evade once more.
Says the one still evading the simple argument that was made from the start which they are completely incapable of refuting.

You appear to come over as knowing much
Again, what I know is irrelevant.
Again, showing ONE POSSIBLE WAY to get knowledge has no bearing on if it is the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY.

Have you figured out the difference between those 2 statements yet?

Stop deflecting and deal with your inability to defend the claim you have chosen to defend.

Explain how anyone could ever become an expert on any subject without such a subject matter expert already existing, if the only way to obtain knowledge is from a subject matter expert.

Anything which doesn't directly address that simple question is just more pathetic deflection from you.

You are at liberty to share your secret or just shut up about it and admit you are wrong.
Follow your own advice.
Either share your secret on how one can become an expert without an existing expert if you need an expert to gain knowledge, or just shut about it and admit you are wrong.

rather than just raving the same thing over and over again sounding like some deranged idiot.
And more pathetic projection.

So you say.
That is your opinion.
It is not his opinion, it is a clear irrefutable fact.

You have been presented the simple argument many times, even had the points numbered so you could easily identify exactly which part you disagree with.
Yet you continue to ignore it because you can't refute it.

But one thing is clear as crystal you will say anything to avoid answering that simple question relating to your statement regarding evidence.
You mean we wont answer your questions based upon a complete strawmanning of our position, where you go to the completely illogical position of equating no expert help, with coming up with something brand new and never before seen.
Where if someone comes up with something, entirely on their own, with no assistance from any expert at all; that merely because it is the same, or similar to a method used by an expert or developed by an expert; that that magically means they got expert assistance.

You would claim aliens on another planet measuring the shadows cast by sticks as obtaining expert assistance from Eratosthenes, just because he did it.

That is pure insanity.

And that is overlooking the other massive error, where you include receiving any assistance at all from any expert, no matter how direct, within just listening to and accepting what an expert says.

You have been provided a method to determine the shape of Earth which does not rely upon you just accepting what an expert says the shape of Earth is.
You continually ignoring that because you don't want to admit you are wrong, is your problem.

You setting up a strawman of our position and trying to hold us to it is your problem.


Once more, here is the simple argument which clearly demonstrates the position you have chosen to defend is pure BS.
Point out what statement here you think is wrong, why you think it is wrong and what the correct answer should be.

1 - The only way to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth is by obtaining it from an expert on the shape of Earth.
2 - Thus without an expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth.
3 - You must have knowledge on the shape of Earth to be an expert on the shape of Earth.
4 - By 2 and 3, without an existing expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible for new people to become experts on the shape of Earth.
5 - At some point in the past there was no expert on the shape of Earth.
6 - By 4 and 5, this means it is impossible for anyone to become an expert on the shape of Earth.
7 - Thus there can be no experts on the shape of Earth.
8 - Thus no one can know the shape of Earth.
9 - People know the shape of Earth.
10 - 8 and 9 are direct contradictions and thus the assumption (1) MUST be wrong.

Quit with the pathetic deflections and deal with this simple irrefutable argument that clearly shows you are wrong.

I stand by what I said. To discover the true shape of the earth today in 2021 one would have to consult or use expert information, expert systems or some other form or recorded information to allow any experiment to prove the shape of the earth. In fact this could be said to be true of most of the scientific concepts you spout about. GR for example, how did you manage to produce your own independent verification of that?

You imagining you could somehow independently come up with a novel method and perform said experiment with no expert support is extremely unlikely verging on the impossible.

The problem is you don't want to address that question, the reason being is because you canít.
All that bluff and bluster regarding how experts came about is irrelevant. We live in the world of 2021 this is the datum. Any experiment you carried out in the here and now would be under conditions that currently exist.

The fact of the matter is you canít answer the question which is why you continue to post the same irrelevant garbage over and over again.

Present your experiment then this discussion can be brought to a close, refuse then you loose the argument.

Several people like yourself have some deluded ideas imagining that they can independently prove scientific concepts. As you pal says evidence is all, so how about you present some rather than tirade after tirade of the same old BS you have been spouting since the start of this argument.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eratosthenes
« on: November 20, 2021, 01:26:59 AM »
You care about truth!
Yes, I care about the truth, unlike you who refuses to answer a simple question because doing so would require either blatantly lying in the face of irrefutable evidence, or admitting you were wrong.

Eratosthenes with providing proof for a Spherical earth along with Aristotle
Is this you now claiming Eratosthenes was in fact providing proof (as well as Aristotle)?
Or that Eratosthenes and Aristotle combined provided the proof and that individually they did not provide proof?
In what way did Eratosthenes prove Earth is a sphere?

When responding, make sure you remember this comment of yours:
According to the expert historians, the main reason why he did this experiment was to calculate the circumference of the earth that he  already knew was a sphere.

Calling people liars just because they happen to accept the 'official' historical record rather than agreeing with you is again your problem.
It's not my problem as I have done no such thing.
Instead I have called people liars when they have blatantly lied.

The fact that you think you are the arbiter of the truth and the only person that cares about it says much about who and what you are.
And there you go with more lies.
That is your pathetic attack on me because you can't actually refute what I said.
Where have I indicated that I am the only person that cares about the truth?
Loads of people care about the truth. Pointing out that you don't and instead you only care about "being right", is not suggesting that no one except me does.

Grow up.

FE believers like to nit pick and seize onto one small topic while forgetting the greater picture as its the only way they can opperate.
Conversely, RE fanatics like just ignoring the rest and using the small bits they know about and blatantly misrepresent boldly claiming things like Eratosthenes proved Earth was spherical, when all he did was measure it after it was already shown to be spherical.

Historians grant him the accolade of proving the world was a sphere
Where?
What I find is him being credited for one of the earliest measurements of the Earth's circumference, not for proving it was a sphere. Plenty of sources will also indicate he already knew/assumed it was spherical. As if his measurements alone are not enough to prove it is a sphere.

You even backed that up with your prior comment:
According to the expert historians, the main reason why he did this experiment was to calculate the circumference of the earth that he  already knew was a sphere.

Why don't we forget about 'proof' of this or 'proof' of that for a moment. All I'm interested in is whether there is any historical evidence that Eratosthenes was trying to measure anything other than the circumference of the Earth.
No, there is not.
But that is not their argument.
Their argument is that Earth is flat, and thus Eratosthenes, while thinking he was measuring the circumference of Earth, was actually measuring something else/taking observations which could be used to calculate something else.

But like I said, they aren't just bringing this up in a vacuum.
They are doing it because people like timmy want to claim that this experiment proved Earth was a sphere thousands of years ago.
And in response to that false claim they explain how the same observations could work on a FE. Normally without needing UA/EA/whatever BS.

The problem is you consider any one who disagrees with you a liar.
Your antics on here demonstrate how little you actually care about the truth.

The historical record plainly states that Eratosthenes is credited with proving the earth is a sphere. If you donít like it or canít accept what the world generally agrees on then thatís your problem. Calling me a liar and proclaiming what I said is BS flies in the face of the accepted facts. You are not the judge and jury of what is true or false.

You speak about the truth yet you shy away from it. Our discussion on experts where again you proclaimed me liar and purveyor of BS was all down to just not liking what I stated. On numerous occasions when asked to present your evidence on why you disagreed you refused. This discussion on Eratosthenes could not be had without expert assistance. The historians who recorded it in the first instance and those who translated it form the original Greek. I say he wrote in Greek but it may well have been another language. None the less numerous experts were required at so many stages to allow you to retrieve the information.

Going back to whatís true, itís a false claim to think that experiment Eratosthenes made along with all the other observations made at that time did NOT prove the earth was a sphere.

As far as the truth is concerned you are a long way off wanting instead to distort the facts and reality to suit your own narrow and warped agenda.


12
Let Jack check out at 18:42 to detach from his fiction so far.
You are the one spouting fiction.
Why should I watch another crappy video from you?

Prove: comet as a rock makes sense.
If lintang kemukus were a rock it wouldn't maintain the speed and then fell down. 

So it wouldn't maintain its speed, instead slowing down and then what?
Just magically hover in mid air?

Where did you pick up your information re the speed of light Jack?

Have you every actually measured it yourself? If so how did you do it?

If not how can you be sure the quoted speed is correct?
Are you implying you personally can't come up with an experiment to test the speed of light? Or that you think JB can't? Because that's hardly relevant. What matters is that anyone can come up with an experiment and conduct it to independently verify it. No need to derail a thread just because you aren't feeling creative.

Ok. Then please describe how you yourself would carry out such an experiment that would calculate the value of C. Remember it has to be your very own experiment that you yourself have designed and not a plagiarised one copied from one of those nasty experts.
You said anyone could do it, so for you it must be a very simple matter.

The thread is about light speed so discussing how it could be calculated and verified is hardly a derailment. You said itís an easy matter, Iím asking how you would carry out this Ďeasyí task?

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature
« on: November 19, 2021, 02:33:16 PM »
Quote
I think you meant to say "all celestial bodies beyond a certain mass threshold"
No I didn't mean to say all celestial bodies. That would include stars and I am certainly not talking about stars in this instance. I am talking about bodies within the solar system such as planets, minor planets and dwarf planets.  Specifically all solid bodies where a minimum mass has been calculated which is required for gravity to sculpt them into a spherical shape.
Gotcha ok, I guess I'm just not sure why you'd exclude stars, which are also spheres because gravity makes them that way, while also spelling out planets of a certain size, since all the planets are above that size. You've broadened the scope a bit now I guess though, so I see what you meant I think.

How have you yourself been able to verify that all stars are spheres due to effect of gravity something many people on this forum claim does not exist?  How have you done this or have you just accepted this expert derived information. You claim that evidence is all is where is your evidence for the above claims.
Stop spamming all over the place. You don't need to have a temper tantrum across the entire upper fora when you've made it abundantly clear you know where to find the lower boards where this would be tolerated. I'll go ahead and send you a warning for derailing yet another thread for this silly game you want to play.

And I leave it to you to use that very sharp mind of yours to see if you can think of a way to gather some kind of evidence with regards to what shape stars take on. Here's a helpful hint. Start with the star closest to us - it's the easiest to see ;)

Itís a question, granted you donít want to answer so you convert my simple question into a temper tantrum! How evasive, how dishonest.

You made claims about stars and gravity, so how do you know this? How did you discover this? Surely given your dislike and distrust of experts going by what you have been preaching you must have come by this knowledge all by yourself, I was just asking about your methodsÖ.hardly a tantrum.

Remember extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and as you love evidence so much where is yours?


14
You're still avoiding the logical argument. That tells anyone reading along you don't have a leg to stand on in this debate. This is a huge victory for you, because it means you don't have to keep putting on this really boring show.
So you say.
That is your opinion.
But one thing is clear as crystal you will say anything to avoid answering that simple question relating to your statement regarding evidence.

So where is your evidence and where do you get it from?

The problem is the answer will reveal what a fraud you are as you like everyone else relies on experts 24/7.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Are the other planets spheres ?
« on: November 19, 2021, 07:02:21 AM »
Depends on what angle you are looking at, doesn't it.
At what angle can you look at a plate and it completely look like a sphere that's rotating? 
Quite a few of them, as it turns out.

I think it all depends how much booze has passed your lips. Tell you what John go take some pics at all those angles you claim that flat discs look like spheres and post them. As your pal says 'evidence is all' so how about providing some. It might make a good chapter for the book.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature
« on: November 19, 2021, 06:32:34 AM »
Quote
I think you meant to say "all celestial bodies beyond a certain mass threshold"
No I didn't mean to say all celestial bodies. That would include stars and I am certainly not talking about stars in this instance. I am talking about bodies within the solar system such as planets, minor planets and dwarf planets.  Specifically all solid bodies where a minimum mass has been calculated which is required for gravity to sculpt them into a spherical shape.
Gotcha ok, I guess I'm just not sure why you'd exclude stars, which are also spheres because gravity makes them that way, while also spelling out planets of a certain size, since all the planets are above that size. You've broadened the scope a bit now I guess though, so I see what you meant I think.

How have you yourself been able to verify that all stars are spheres due to effect of gravity something many people on this forum claim does not exist?  How have you done this or have you just accepted this expert derived information. You claim that evidence is all is where is your evidence for the above claims.

17
Where did you pick up your information re the speed of light Jack?

Have you every actually measured it yourself? If so how did you do it?

If not how can you be sure the quoted speed is correct?
What does this have to do with the topic at all? Especially as there are plenty of ways to measure the speed of light.

Again, if you want to discuss your inability to defend the claims regarding experts and knowledge, go do it in the thread assigned for that.


This thread is about light speed, you claimed there are many methods, so which one of these alleged many methods have you yourself used?

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eratosthenes
« on: November 19, 2021, 06:26:26 AM »
Why don't we forget about 'proof' of this or 'proof' of that for a moment. All I'm interested in is whether there is any historical evidence that Eratosthenes was trying to measure anything other than the circumference of the Earth.

What you forget is that he lived a life and did many things scientific and the stick experiment was only one small part of a greater whole. FE believers like to nit pick and seize onto one small topic while forgetting the greater picture as its the only way they can opperate. His calculating the circumference was part of a greater whole and must be considered as such. Historians grant him the accolade of proving the world was a sphere and I don't see why because of the ravings of a mad man I should disagree. Of course FE believers will disagree but they disagree and ignore ALL the evidence irrespective of its validity as that is what they do.

19
Is it?

How do you come by evidence without expertise?
That's really the question for you.
If you need expertise to come to evidence/knowledge, how did anyone ever get that to develop the expertise required to allow people to get to evidence/knowledge?

It is a never ending cycle.
The only way to break the cycle is to be able to get evidence/knowledge without expertise so you can become an expert.


I would consult experts
Yes, we understand, you want to be spoon fed all the answers so you don't need to think.

But not everyone is like that.
I think.
I'm curious.
For a lot of things, I'm not satisfied with someone just saying it is so.
I want an explanation and something that makes sense.
If it doesn't make sense, I will ask questions, and probe and investigate.
And I'm quite happy to call people out on something that sounds like BS, even if they are an "expert", because even "experts" can be wrong.

And that is why the only time I have brought up the fact I have a PhD is when you decided to be a condescending prick, because if I had to resort to having a PhD to make my arguments hold weight, that would mean the arguments themselves are worthless.
Arguments should stand on their own merit and on the evidence, not based upon who made them.
That is a key factor which separates science and religion.

Evasion, so your not going to answer a simple question, all bluff and bluster.
You have been provided the answer, you just keep ignoring it because it shows you are wrong.
Remember this:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=88691.msg2326399#msg2326399

Conversely, you have been evading the entire time; seemingly incapable of grasping trivial concepts like the distinction between a possible way and the only possible way.
Likewise, you have evaded the simple argument which clearly shows the position you have chosen to defend is pure nonsense which needs a god or time travel to save it.

Like I have asked several times before, how did the first expert in a subject come to be if the only way to obtain knowledge in that subject is from an existing expert?
Or for the more formal approach, exactly which point of the following argument do you disagree with, why do you think it is wrong, and what do you think it should be:
1 - The only way to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth is by obtaining it from an expert on the shape of Earth.
2 - Thus without an expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth.
3 - You must have knowledge on the shape of Earth to be an expert on the shape of Earth.
4 - By 2 and 3, without an existing expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible for new people to become experts on the shape of Earth.
5 - At some point in the past there was no expert on the shape of Earth.
6 - By 4 and 5, this means it is impossible for anyone to become an expert on the shape of Earth.
7 - Thus there can be no experts on the shape of Earth.
8 - Thus no one can know the shape of Earth.
9 - People know the shape of Earth.
10 - 8 and 9 are direct contradictions and thus the assumption (1) MUST be wrong.

This argument was raised basically right from the start, and all you have done since is evade.
You couldn't deal with the argument when presented in simple form, nor could you deal with it when presented more formally.
Instead you kept acting like because you CAN get knowledge from an expert, it is the ONLY WAY to obtain it.
So don't go accusing others of evasion when that seems to be all you are capable of.

Perhaps you can answer a simple question, did God give the first human expert, the knowledge required for them to be an expert, or did a time traveller go back in time to complete the loop and give us the first human expert?

You appear to come over as knowing much about Eratosthenes, so how did you come by such information if it was not from experts or expert sources? Ot have you invented time travel?

You have often mentioned light its speed and its nature. Have you ever verified its speed or nature? or are you just willing to be spoon fed and accept what the experts have concluded? The same could be said for much of science if not all.

You make great play about imagining you independently verify all the facts spout on this forum, prove it, reveal your methods.

The shape of the earth is not open for debate. Only crazy people imagine it's a hot topic or something worth discussing. You even imagine you have a secret method for proving its a sphere, well bully for you.

You appear to to have a problem with this:-

"2 - Thus without an expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth"

You are at liberty to share your secret or just shut up about it and admit you are wrong. If you think that statement is incorrect then provide some evidence on your novel method known only to you, free from any contamination from any previous methods rather than just raving the same thing over and over again sounding like some deranged idiot.

If it has been done before and has been shown to work and has been validated  then it becomes 'expert information' by definition. Using any previous method is of course using experts and the information they have produced. I really don't see what the problems is? You and your pals could simply bring this to an end by stating what your novel, expert free, method is.

But of course you can't hence the continual raving.





20
Timmy can't figure out how to do experiments, and seems to believe that means no one else can either. Noted.

Evasion, so your not going to answer a simple question, all bluff and bluster.
See youíve been busy, yet another new avatar. You must have time on your hands. Do you spend it collecting evidence?

This is where you left off. You were trying to figure out which part of this statement was wrong, and explain exactly why:


1 - The only way to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth is by obtaining it from an expert.
2 - Thus without an expert, it is impossible to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth.
3 - Thus without an existing expert, it is impossible for new people to become experts.
4 - At some point in the past there was no expert on the shape of Earth.
5 - By 3 and 4, this means it is impossible for new people to become experts.
6 - Thus there can be no experts.
7 - Thus no one can know the shape of Earth.
8 - Experts exist and know the shape of Earth.
9 - 7 and 8 are direct contradictions and thus the assumption (1) MUST be wrong.

You digress and evade once more.

You said evidence trumps all. So where do you obtain the evidence you use to back up all these claims you make if it's neither from experts or expert sources, where the hell is it from? or are you just once more going to evade answering the question?

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eratosthenes
« on: November 19, 2021, 04:54:01 AM »
Whatís wrong with you? Own up to what? That your are a prize prat?
I care about the truth and object to BS regardless of which side is spouting it, even if that means that I appear to be promoting the FE and attacking the RE because some REer said some stupid BS.
Most people wouldn't call that a problem or something wrong.

I also said
Again, stop deflecting with other things you have said.
Saying one thing that is correct doesn't mean everything you said is correct.
Focus on the actual objection raised.

You claimed he proved it was a sphere.
Do you accept that that statement of yours is pure BS?
If not, try to defend it, rather than fleeing from it.

Because like I said, is is BS like that which makes FEers talk about it so much.

You care about truth!  What truth? your own?

Fleeing from what? the fact I done agree with you.

The historical record credits  Eratosthenes with providing proof for a Spherical earth along with Aristotle, but of course what they provided is just not good enough for you and some other flat earthers, well may I say thats your problem. Calling people liars just because they happen to accept the 'official' historical record rather than agreeing with you is again your problem. The fact that you think you are the arbiter of the truth and the only person that cares about it says much about who and what you are.

If you are the other flat earthers think the historical record is BS then good for you.

22
Timmy can't figure out how to do experiments, and seems to believe that means no one else can either. Noted.

Evasion, so your not going to answer a simple question, all bluff and bluster.
See youíve been busy, yet another new avatar. You must have time on your hands. Do you spend it collecting evidence?

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eratosthenes
« on: November 18, 2021, 03:45:03 PM »
Dishonest where?
How about here:
I claimed nothing
He proved the earth was a sphere 2000 years ago which was a big deal then.

Whenever I ask you to quote one of my many alleged lies you shrink away.
No, when you ask, I provide a quote and you just ignore it.
Another example of your blatant dishonesty.

Why is it so important to you what I think
It isn't a matter of what you think.
It is a matter of what you falsely claimed in a public forum, which is factually incorrect, while you try to pretend you are better than everyone else and can do no wrong.


Again, you falsely claimed he proved Earth was a sphere.
This claim of yours is wrong and instead, as you later said, he already knew Earth was a sphere and was just determine the size of this sphere, which has the implication he was not proving Earth was a sphere.

Are you capable of owning up to your mistake, or can you only participate while pretending you are the best person here who can never make a mistake?
Can you directly admit that you were wrong when you claimed he proved Earth was a sphere?

(Which again, is the kind of claim which causes FEers to talk about it so much)

Whatís wrong with you? Own up to what? That your are a prize prat?
Ok youíre a prat,
The earth is a sphere itís no secret ask Aristotle. Itís been known for a long time, the Greek guy added to the proof by, measuring  its circumference, itís tilt and all that good stuff. His experiment was not done in a vacuum. The accumulation of knowledge and all that! True itís a given flat earth believers hate the experiment, but there you go. If you donít like it then thatís your problem go back in time and have it out with him. For his time he did a grand job.

A proof is made up of a number of components and if you canít understand that then thatís your problem. It works for me.

I also said   whatever the Greek guy did back then has no real  importance for the world of today, apart from it getting your panties in a twist.

His  stick experiment was a part of a larger body of  work that when put together did indeed prove the world was a sphere? He unlike you was a clever chap.


24
So Dr Jack spill the beansÖ.. where do you get all your shit from?
And you are still going down the path of extreme stupidity.

Grown up! Possibly when you at last do that and stop behaving like a baby you will admit that all the knowledge you have, limited though it be, had come via experts. Though why the reluctance   to admit that is indeed strange!
The only one reluctant to admit things here is you.
Yet again you keep trying to bring up crap which has no bearing on the topic.

How many times must it be spelled out for you before it sinks in?
Again, just because you CAN get knowledge from an expert doesn't mean you MUST get knowledge from an expert.
Just because ONE POSSIBLE WAY to get knowledge is obtaining it from an expert, that doesn't mean THE ONLY WAY to get knowledge is obtaining it from an expert.

As has been pointed out, if that BS you want to pedal truly was the case then there would be no experts. This is because at some point in time there would have been no expert and thus no way to obtain knowledge an become an expert.
This is the issue you still deflect from with pathetic BS.

Would you call yourself an expert?
That's the neat thing. Expertise is trumped by evidence 100% of the time.

Is it?

How do you come by evidence without expertise? An overwhelming application of ignorance perhaps?
That appears to be what most if not all flat earthers try.

Light, itís speed, makeup and nature has always been a bone of contention for flatists.  You claim evidence trumps all so how would you go about collecting evidence to  support what ever you happen to believe about all things to do with light?

I would consult experts who have both the facilities and expertise to provide the answers so it would be interesting if you could explain how you would single handed gather all your  evidence.

25
Let Jack check out at 18:42 to detach from his fiction so far.
You are the one spouting fiction.
Why should I watch another crappy video from you?

Prove: comet as a rock makes sense.
If lintang kemukus were a rock it wouldn't maintain the speed and then fell down. 

So it wouldn't maintain its speed, instead slowing down and then what?
Just magically hover in mid air?

Where did you pick up your information re the speed of light Jack?

Have you every actually measured it yourself? If so how did you do it?

If not how can you be sure the quoted speed is correct?

26
So Dr Jack spill the beansÖ.. where do you get all your shit from?
And you are still going down the path of extreme stupidity.

Grown up! Possibly when you at last do that and stop behaving like a baby you will admit that all the knowledge you have, limited though it be, had come via experts. Though why the reluctance   to admit that is indeed strange!
The only one reluctant to admit things here is you.
Yet again you keep trying to bring up crap which has no bearing on the topic.

How many times must it be spelled out for you before it sinks in?
Again, just because you CAN get knowledge from an expert doesn't mean you MUST get knowledge from an expert.
Just because ONE POSSIBLE WAY to get knowledge is obtaining it from an expert, that doesn't mean THE ONLY WAY to get knowledge is obtaining it from an expert.

As has been pointed out, if that BS you want to pedal truly was the case then there would be no experts. This is because at some point in time there would have been no expert and thus no way to obtain knowledge an become an expert.
This is the issue you still deflect from with pathetic BS.

Would you call yourself an expert?

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eratosthenes
« on: November 17, 2021, 01:23:16 PM »
Your off on your must be lying rant already, by god you must be rattled.
Not a rant, just calling you out on your dishonest BS.

I claimed nothing
And there you go with same old lies. You claim pure BS, get called out on it and then pretend you never did.
Here is your comment from earlier:
He proved the earth was a sphere 2000 years ago which was a big deal then.
If this isn't you claiming he proved Earth was a sphere, just what is it?

Again, nice and simple, were you wrong when you claimed he proved Earth was a sphere?
Yes or no?

Can you grow up and admit you are wrong, or can you only continue with this dishonest BS, acting like you are god and can do no wrong?

Dishonest where?
Bullshit Ditto where?

Stuck for a comeback you always revert to your two good old standbys:
Claim lies
Claim bullshit

When it comes to both you are preeminent.

Whenever I ask you to quote one of my many alleged lies you shrink away.

If you want to know what he did with his sticks go look it up itís all there in the historical documents.

Why is it so important to you what I think he did when itís laid out in the historical document? In the end who really cares as it was a long long time ago and things have moved on, or havenít you noticed?

Go look it up. The ideas that you can come by that kind of knowledge by any other route is crazyÖ.. or do you claim to have a time machine?Önot Dr Black but Dr Who!

28
The central problem is if you have a belief you will end up seeing what you want to see. This site is full of such horizon based observations where people will interpret what they see to fit with what they believe.
And you are perhaps the best example of that. In fact, here is one such example from you:

So far no one has yet been able to answer the original question, not even the great Dr Black phd.
Complete with the same mocking attitude you love to use to hide your inadequacy.
And of course, this claim is based upon completely ignoring what has been said, like this post here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=88691.msg2324802#msg2324802

But that shouldn't be that surprising considering you still don't seem to understand the difference between "A possible way" and "THE ONLY possible way"; and likewise you don't seem to understand the difference between "no expert help" and "entirely original, never before seen".

You don't even seem to understand what a subject matter expert is.

My question is why bother when one can just look it up by referring to expert derived knowledge.
There are a variety of reasons, even curiosity is one.
You not caring doesn't mean no one will.
We get it, you want to be lazy, you don't want to think, you just want everything spoon fed to you.
But not everyone is like that.

Anyway, now that you are back, have you figured out how people could ever get knowledge in a field if the only way to get that knowledge is from an expert, and to be an expert you need that knowledge?

If not, have you grown enough to admit you were wrong?

Such displayed spleen!
So Dr Jack spill the beansÖ.. where do you get all your shit from?

Grown up! Possibly when you at last do that and stop behaving like a baby you will admit that all the knowledge you have, limited though it be, had come via experts. Though why the reluctance   to admit that is indeed strange!

Though if you wish you could list all the shit you Dr. Black have discovered all by yourselfÖ

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eratosthenes
« on: November 17, 2021, 11:12:54 AM »
Still proclaiming to be the font of all knowledge, all gained through some mysterious process free from experts.
Still blatantly lying about things to pretend you are better than everyone else.
If you want to pull that crap again, go revive the thread and you can keep getting your ass handed to you.

For this thread, stick to the topic.
You proclaimed that Eratosthenes proved Earth was a sphere.
When that was pointed out, you just pulled your normal childish BS by insulting people and deflecting.

Perhaps a more direct question would help:
Where you wrong when you said:
He proved the earth was a sphere 2000 years ago which was a big deal then.
Yes or no?

According to the expert historians, the main reason why he did this experiment was to calculate the circumference of the earth that he  already knew was a sphere. Itís no big secret.
If it's no big secret, why did you falsely claim he proved Earth was a sphere?

Again, that is why it is talked about so much, people like you falsely claiming he proved it is a sphere.
This results in people like John and other FEers saying that that relies upon assuming Earth is a sphere, and that the same measurements would work on a FE.

Your off on your must be lying rant already, by god you must be rattled.
In regard to the Greek stick man, there canít be many sources about what he did so we must all be working from the same one apart from you of course, what with your super power of channeling or whatever way you claim to come by knowledge all on your lonesome.
I claimed nothing, he did what he did with his sticks all these years ago.., but  who cares? I drive a car have internet access have computers, Who needs sticks? I donít do you?
So Dr. Black what lies have I unleashed on you in this post? As regards my ass itís been where itís always been, certainly   never handled by you!

30
Quote
In this thread we are going to use only scientific and rational methods and see if an everyday person can demonstrate whether the Earth if flat or round. We will wipe everything we take as granted and we will rely only on what we can observe with our naked eye or demonstrate with simple mathematics.
Bear in mind that flat Earth believers, like all conspiracy theorists are not scientists. They are denialists. They deny anything other than what they believe to be true. And the one thing they love more than anything is engaging with those who oppose their beliefs and challenging the evidence which is presented which (to every one else) shows their beliefs are false. By engaging with them non-believers are simply feeding the believers which makes them feel more and more confident that they are right.

A typical flat Earther would likely say we cannot prove for definite, 100% and beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Earth is a globe. So as long as there remains that snippet of chance the Earth could be flat then they are going to believe it is. Obviously we have space based photos of the Earth showing it to be a globe but in this day and age of photo and video editing anything is possible.

If you think about conspiracy theories, all are chosen so they are based around subjects which are actually very difficult to prove one way or another. For the every day person in the street at least.

The fun part of it I guess is challenging those beliefs with evidence and that makes you realise how difficult it is to actually prove anything for definite!

Using the naked eye to prove anything is not a method to be recommended. Just observing on its own  is open to various interpretations influenced by inherent belief. Case in point some flat earthers can look at the same moon as I and conclude itís a disc and not spherical. So much for naked eye observation.
The central problem is if you have a belief you will end up seeing what you want to see. This site is full of such horizon based observations where people will interpret what they see to fit with what they believe.

So far no one has yet been able to answer the original question, not even the great Dr Black phd.

ď In this thread we are going to use only scientific and rational methods and see if an everyday person can demonstrate whether the Earth if flat or round.Ē

My question is why bother when one can just look it up by referring to expert derived knowledge. After all itís how we obtain all our other knowledge so why not that particular piece? Whatís so special about the shape of the earth, what sets that apart from all other knowledge?

I like most other people have a range of interests, ornithology being one of them. If I want to find out about a new species Iíve never encountered before or gain more information on any particular species, what do I do, what does anyone do?..    go look it up by referring to expert  derived knowledge. Gaining information on the shape of the earth is no differentÖ.  Unless you have an ulterior motive which in this case is to somehow make such knowledge in relation to the earth Ďspecialí which of course itís not.



Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 51