1

Flat Earth General / Re: Experiencing Earth as a Flat Earth

« on: Today at 12:37:11 PM »

Forget the stupid word, "flat".

So reject the very thing I your argument relies upon?
The very thing I have been rejecting  repeatedly?

Does that mean you accept your claim is stupid?

Admit that from your reference point, the Earth beneath your goddamn feet is stationary and unmoving.

i.e. say that when I am standing on Earth's surface, the surface beneath my feet is not moving relative to me?
Just like when I am sitting in a car or a plane, the car or plane is not moving relative to me?

If you want to make it clear always that it is relative to me, then fine, when I'm not moving around on Earth.
But that doesn't mean it is stationary.
Just like when I hop in a car and drive somewhere, I don't see that as my and the car being stationary while the entire universe (including Earth) moves around us.

Is your brain even capable of processing this?

Yes. Is yours? Is it capable of processing that that is not what you have been saying?
That you aren't simply saying Earth is stationary relative to us, but that instead it is stationary?
Do you understand the difference?
Or have been trapped in place on this "stationary" Earth your entire life, unable to move?

There is only so many goddamn different ways I can say the same thing to you.  Unconvinced gets the essence of what I'm saying, and he too is up against a brick wall with you.

The problem is you keep saying the same thing, instead of the slightly different thing which would actually be correct, but basically useless.

2

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

« on: Today at 01:42:18 AM »

The defendants made their claims, without any proof for their claims being true.

And instead of asking them to justify them, or asking those who bring them up to justify them, you baselessly accuse them of lying.
That means the burden is on YOU to show they are lying.

I am not required to show proof of their claims when YOU decided to bring up their claims to call them liars.
The burden is entirely on you.

Just like the defence attorney doesn't need to prove the accused is innocent, they need to show the prosecution has not shown they are guilty.

And if the prosecutor tried to continually say the accused is guilty and they need to prove they are innocent, the jury would almost certainly find them not guilty and the prosecutor would likely lose their job. That is if they don't get laughed out of court for trying that crap.

At this point, there’s enough good videos showing they made it all up without any doubt.

What you have provided certainly isn't. So if there is, where is it?

The much higher quality image from NASA supports their claim.
The better quality images produced by stacking supports their claim.

All you have is the inability to tell with poor footage.

We gain nothing by denying the truth. It only hurts you in the end.

You are clearly gaining something from denying it. It is just a question of what.

Jack prefers to be in denial of the truth. He makes up all the excuses for the truth. He is a true believer in their fairy tale being true.

Projecting again.
You are the one so desperately in denial you continue to refuse to answer simple questions and refuse to provide evidence to back up your claims.

If you can accept their claims were lies, because they are lies, you’re on your way to the whole truth they’ve hidden from us, or tried to hide anyway.

You mean if I accept your lies, I will be on my way to running from the truth you are trying to hide.

3

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

« on: Today at 01:33:22 AM »

They don’t show what we’d see going above a ball Earth at all.

Why? Because you say so?

Rising higher and higher above a large FLAT surface is what we DO see, a surface that always appears to rise up with us, seen directly across from us at all distances

No, that is explicitly what we don't see. As shown repeatedly, including by YOUR OWN EVIDENCE!

When we rise above any size sphere, what would happen?
It’s a very easy question, and a very easy answer.

And it has been answered, repeatedly, and matches what is observed in reality on Earth.
We can see further and the horizon gets lower.

I’ve seen some images showing a curved horizon from a plane, supposedly. The problem is that it’s seen directly across from them!

BASED ON WHAT?
Where is the reference you are using in this image?
As a reminder, the images YOU PICKED shows this is a blatant lie from you.

It would be far lower than that

PROVE IT!
Do the math.

Perspective acts on flat surfaces over a distance, while it acts on other surfaces if they’re close to a flat surface over a distance.

Perspective acts on ALL surfaces.

Horizons only form over longer distances on flat surfaces.

Horizons do not form over flat surfaces, as there is no mechanism for it to do so.
That is why you keep fleeing from the question of how?

They see horizons through periscopes, but they’re less than three miles away from them.

Yes, something you cannot explain.
You cannot explain the distance to the horizon at all.

The subs do not fire any torpedoes based on any curvature to a ship

Citation needed.

They’d be a few inches off, but it’s not off at all.

A few inches on a target that is several m wide and tall.
And on what basis do you say it's not off at all?


Now again, stop with all your pathetic BS, and try honestly answering the questions for once in your life, or admit to everyone you have no answer and have no explanation for how it works on a flat Earth
Why does the horizon form at 5 km?
Why does it vary with altitude?
What is this magical formula you claim you have?
Why does the angle of dip increase with increasing altitude?

4

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

« on: Today at 01:27:04 AM »

30 to 40000 feet is the distance we see through the air below a plane, and it’s completely clear to see through.

PROVE IT!
You keep asserting this but provide NOTHING to justify it.
Meanwhile you were provided with some simple images to talk about and you just flee from it.
As if you know it will show you are a lying POS.

You’ve lost that argument, it’s stupid to keep spewing about it being in air.

Given how much you need to repeat the same baseless BS, without providing a single thing to justify it; all while refusing to answer simple questions about photos which will show you are a lying POS.

So if anyone has lost the argument, it is you, by default, from refusing to engage.

But that never stops you with anything else you’ve failed at, you’ll say it’s air forever and ever, bs lives on and on for you

Projecting again I see.

Again, look at these images of mountains:




Without trying to look it up to find the reference photo, can you tell me if these photos have been edited and in what way?
And just to clarify, it is entirely possible that all three have been edited in the same way but to different extents.

Or do you know you need to keep avoiding them because they show you are a lying POS?

5

Flat Earth General / Re: The Final Experiment - Antarctic 24 hour sun

« on: Today at 01:21:56 AM »

Actually, what I said was quite a number of things. Let's add two more.

None of which show anything wrong with it.

Remember that cold breath? There are offscreen camera angles of him walking into his cabin, vaping, and then breathing out into a camera.

You mean the angles which show the 24 hour sun?
The thing you reject as fake.
More importantly, SO WHAT?

That doesn't show anything is fake.

]You know, when you're doing anything real, it looks natural. But the fact that he had to tell us about it was a giant red flag.

Not when you are dealing with dishonest people like you, and instead they attempt to call out dishonest BS excuses that would be used.

Speaking of which, this man had to acquire gloves and a hat.

So what?

He wasn't shivering.

So what?

Let me repeat that. He was out for 24 hour looking at this sun in below freezing, yet he was not wearing hat or gloves, not did he give any visible signs of shivering, frostbite, hypothermia, etc.

And for how long was he out in the snow in these below freezing temperatures?
How hot is it in the direct sun?

He has to go to a specific spot to collect snow.

Does he? Or did he just go to a spot which hadn't been repeatedly trampled?

They don't appear tobe leaving tracks.

You mean you don't see them leaving tracks.
But have you actually checked?

No wind, no snowfall, no sound of weather. Outside in the cold, the wind literally whistles as it rushes through people's clothing.

You left out an important condition, WHEN IT IS WINDY. When it isn't windy, the wind doesn't whistle as it rushes through clothing.

Likewise, it will not necessarily snow within a 24 hour period.

It's the same tech used in the Mandalorian. A very real-looking 360° screen.

Prove it.

but there were visual glitches.

Prove it.
Provide a link to the video that shows this and an exact timestamp.

The shadows look unaccountably large

No, they don't.
With the sun being that low, the shadows will be large.
What BS will you try next? Any photo at sunset is fake?

the background looks unaccountably close

Based on what?

The shadow would vary so much only if there were a nearby light source.

Baseless vague garbage.
Shadows vary based upon the angle to the light, not how close it is.

The drone is making proximity beeps the whole time that it backs up.

Again, prove it.
Where is the video? What is the timestamp?

For that matter, this is what it says about the snow making done by ski resorts

Who gives a crap? You have no basis for it to be artificial snow.

Unlike your picture, the sun gives proper shadows. The flag waves slightly. You can see twerp kids running because of a sadist teacher. The details match up. Except that the kids appear to be wearing shorts (but unlike your "final experiment" this can be explained by the aforementioned sadism). The trees have snow on them and have lost of leaves (this tells us that unlike in Hallmark films where it snows but there are green leaves, it actually is winter). Little details are what proves a shot true or false.

What shadows?
Again, what is wrong with the shadows in the video?
How do you know the flags are waving?
You are appealing to a static image and claiming motion.
Yet again you demonstrate you will just make up whatever shit you want to pretend your fantasy is true.

6

Flat Earth General / Re: Experiencing Earth as a Flat Earth

« on: Today at 01:10:29 AM »

I'm not wrong about this. Forget what science says Earth is doing at the moment and dont look up at the sky for a moment.

All those 200 proofs of a flat earth, refer to the way we experience our immediate environment. You could easily convince any person who has never been exposed to the globe earth truth, that the larger shape of the earth is literally any shape you say it is.

That is what flat earthers get right. What they get wrong is trying to apply that experience to mean the entire world is shaped like a pancake.

Unconvinced hit the nail on the head.

You are wrong about this. As I have explained repeatedly.
My immediate is not flat.
When I go about my environment, it is not a flat one. I know how much further I can see when I'm at the top of a hill than at the bottom.

Those "200 proofs" are a few ideas, most of which are straight out lies. Most have nothing to do with how we experience our immediate environment.

You being able to convince someone who has no idea that Earth is shaped like a pineapple doesn't mean we experience Earth as flat.

7

Flat Earth General / Re: Experiencing Earth as a Flat Earth

« on: Today at 01:08:17 AM »

Well feelings aren’t facts.  They are instinctive reactions, not rational thoughts.

I’m not talking about physical stimulus, although the word can mean that.  It’s not like I’m pushed back in my seat in the train example.  It’s a perception of self motion, but it’s not actively  thinking that I’m moving either.  It’s more a subconscious instinct.

I don entirely agree with how Smoke Machine puts his argument, but I think there’s something in it.

Our sense of motion evolved for navigating the immediate environment, to avoid things like smacking into a tree when chasing prey.  Not to contemplate the Earth’s movement through the solar system or galaxy.  It’s a deeply ingrained perception, and I think that’s why it’s so hard to convince some people otherwise by telling them why evidence, geometry and physics say otherwise.

And I don't really think it is a feeling of motion.
That again ties back into what I said, we are trying to react in a way where we can pursue prey, taking note of where things are and responding appropriately.
And that also includes making rapid changes when the prey does.
When that gets applied in such a different situation it causes strange feelings.

If Smoke's argument was that in our everyday experience of Earth, we don't think about the large scale shape of Earth and we don't think about its motion, I would agree.
But going beyond that to claim because we aren't actively thinking it is round that means we think of it and experience it as flat; and that that somehow means we feel it is motionless, I disagree.

8

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

« on: Today at 12:47:44 AM »

All of us follow after some sort of nonsense.

For me, that is TV shows or YouTube or the like which I recognise as fiction but find interesting.

Answer me this, why are you deciding to follow the same crap you learned when you were a child?

I'm not.
I'm accepting the same facts I learned when I was a child.
Because I understand them, and understand why they are correct.

As a child I was also taught that USA exists.
Should I decide to stop following that "crap" I was taught?

What about 1+1=2?
I was taught that when I was a child. Unless we are going into some non standard space like using binary or p-adic numbers or something like that, should I decide to stop following that "crap"?

Suggesting people should discard something just because they were taught it as a child is pathetic even for you.
Most things taught to children by responsible adults are to help them prepare for the world. Most are true. Most shouldn't be discarded as crap.

Instead of focusing on what we were taught as a child, try focusing on what we can observe today. Like how the perspective of the sun makes no sense on a flat Earth, but perfect sense on a round Earth.

I had already made up my mind from a few days of sky watching.

Yet you can't provide a single valid reason how that made you believe Earth was flat, which you are willing to defend.
Instead it looks more like your teacher was incompetent or you were a horrible student and you simply don't understand and decided to reject what you don't understand.

Not because he wants me dead (unlike the numerous people in Big Pharma, Big Food, or Big Government, who hate humanity, not even me specifically), but because he knows I love him.

They don't want you dead. They want you in a position where you make them money, or where they have control.
Just like "your Teacher".

But yes, I'll continue to play Eric Dubay videos.

Or you could try thinking and being honest for once.

They disappear from the bottom up, and once gone, they can be brought back into view with better optics. Instead you need to get closer or higher.

They don't though.

They do.
Just asserting they don't doesn't magically mean they don't.

Here's an actual hill. As the girl in green in front goes over that hill, even if we zoomed in for a closeup, we would see her feet disappear, then her legs, and so on. She might even reach an obstruction point where she just suddenly disappeared all at once.

Other than the "suddenly disappear all at once" that is what happens on Earth.

But look at the girl behind her on the left, and compare here height to the people in back. She is visually shorter than them, even at this distance.

No one is saying perspective doesn't exist.
Even look at your example of a hill.
Does people taking up a smaller angular size mean they wont disappear over the hill? No.

Artists understand the Earth better than you do.

They understand simple techniques to draw drawings.
Notice that that is a drawing, not a photo of reality.

9

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

« on: Today at 12:28:08 AM »

In fact, go to all of his posts and stop bothering me.
Esp you, Jack Black.

If you don't want to be bothered, stop spouting BS.

Unlike me, who you can trace the time of most of my posts between 4am and 10am EST, you probably do this as a full-time job.

Telling fools or liars why they are wrong wouldn't be a fulfilling job at all.

I have a much better job than this.

Now again, care to tell us why you are suggesting we fly a clearly longer route?

10

Flat Earth General / Re: Experiencing Earth as a Flat Earth

« on: January 11, 2025, 01:35:29 AM »

No comment on the Wikipedia entry, I see.

It’s still not clear if you are saying that you are different to other people and don’t personally experience these sensations of movement, or if you are trying to refute the whole thing.

I would say it should not be classified as feeling motion, and if anything, the fact it is claiming to feel motion you are not undergoing shows you are not feeling motion.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does gravity works in FE?

« on: January 11, 2025, 01:30:50 AM »

There’s no variance of falling through air above Earth.

We are talking about free fall in a vacuum. And there certainly is a variance to that, as shown repeatedly.

You have a single rate of ‘gravity’, right?

No. That is your strawman.
It is a single rate for a specific location (and to a lesser extent time) affecting all masses.
But this rate varies with location (and due to things moving, time).

There’s a single rate, it’s seen all over the place, known and taught as one rate.

No, known and taught to be variable, with a simple approximation typically used.

You can’t change that rate because forces don’t act out at one rate on all objects.

So I can't change the rate to match reality, because then your BS is wrong?

Bs as usual.

That certainly sums up your post.

Yet again you refuse to address the gravity of the situation.
Your complete inability to explain gravity on a FE.

You still have absolutely no reason for the direction.
No reason for the rate.
No reason for the rate to vary across Earth.
No reason for the pressure gradient.
No reason for the pressure gradient to not push things up.

Instead, you just have pure magic, where your magic sky pixie magically does whatever is magically needed to magically produce the results that are observed.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again

« on: January 11, 2025, 01:26:46 AM »

Forces cannot, will not, do not act out in any proportional way.

We have been over this countless times.
It doesn't matter what BS you want to wrap it up in, if you want to be honest and admit it is proportional or pretend it is being hit by more of the same force.
It is just a different way of saying the same thing.

Again, how does a wind act out as a force?

By applying a pressure. That is a force per unit area. That means it is proportional to area.
Gravity instead has a force per unit mass for the gravitational field.

Your force acts in proportion to mass, unlike all real forces which don’t act proportionally to a feature of objects.

No, just like other forces act proportional to something.
The only thing that is special, is that it is mass that it is proportional to.

Why would it do such a stupid thing? How can a force detect each objects mass, then adjust its strength to the objects mass, at a very specific value, which doesn’t make any sense at all, but picks that one rate, because your made up force wants to pull down all things from air as if they were all the very same masses!!!

The same way the wind detects the area, then adjusts its strength to the object's area, at a very specific value, and so on.
I.e. it doesn't.

How does an MRI detect and adjust the force it is applying based upon the properties of the object, so it can carefully apply a very significant force to magnetic implants and rip them out of a patient while not slamming the patient itself into the machine?
How did the MRI in the video above detect what object was there and adjust its force accordingly?

It’s really one of the most amazing features of your made up force, but there’s far more it will do than that!  The super duper all special force, it does all things you want it to, just say it does, and it does!!!

It is an "amazing" features of your strawman. It is not amazing for gravity.
Gravity is not really that special, and doesn't magically do whatever people want.

13

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

« on: January 11, 2025, 01:20:09 AM »

Except we always see water appear blue over large bodies of water, and see it as clear when close to it in smaller areas.

Just like air.
Over a small enough region, it appears colourless.
But over a large enough distance, enough light is scattered to make it appear blue.
And looking more along the path of that light, it appears red.


Again, look at these images of mountains:




Without trying to look it up to find the reference photo, can you tell me if these photos have been edited and in what way?
And just to clarify, it is entirely possible that all three have been edited in the same way but to different extents.

Or do you know you need to keep avoiding them because they show you are a lying POS?

So now you’re trying to claim  the sky is blue way behind mountains?

No. I'm asking about the air between the photographer and the mountains.

If the air itself is physically blue in colour, or tinted blue over a distance through air, we’d be able to measure for the blue within air.

And we can. You just make no attempt to.

When we look at a mountain from the surface, we’re looking through hundreds of miles of the densest air that exists, right?

Generally no. Generally you are not seeing it through hundreds of miles of air.
Generally you are seeing through much less.
And while some of that is the densest air, not all is.

So you’ve proven that a mountain hundreds of miles away is seen through clear air, nothing blue at all.

No I haven't.
Instead, the question you keep fleeing from directly relates to that.
Why do you refuse to answer?
Is it because you know it will expose you as a lying POS?

Again:
Without trying to look it up to find the reference photo, can you tell me if these photos have been edited and in what way?
And just to clarify, it is entirely possible that all three have been edited in the same way but to different extents.

14

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

« on: January 11, 2025, 01:09:06 AM »

When you haven’t any evidence first of all to support

Again, acting like a prosecutor demanding the defendant proves they are innocent.

Again, it truly is incredibly simple.
YOU claimed they lied, so the burden is on you to prove it.
Until you do, you have lost the argument.
I am under no obligation to prove they told the truth to object to your baseless claim that they lied.
Especially when the only way you can try to pretend your position is valid by dismissing other things as lies by grouping them together.
So you have a claim of lies built upon further claims of lies.

So prove they lied, or give up.

15

Flat Earth General / Re: Experiencing Earth as a Flat Earth

« on: January 10, 2025, 01:51:16 PM »

You've spent the last two decades thinking of nothing but the earth being a globe in all your daily flat earth meditations and refutations. You have primed and conditioned your mind to always be quick to defend the globe earth model.

Unless you meant to restrict that "all" to "flat Earth meditations and refutations", I have thought of plenty of other things.
I am also not conditioned to just defend the globe Earth model, as shown when I object to crap like what Timmy spouted.

They all argue the experience of the world is as if it is flat, and they are talking about the experience of the world in their immediate environment.

And as explained repeatedly, they are wrong.
Earth at the small scale is not flat.
The immediate environment is not flat.

Flat Earth is the base awareness and what you feel and experience of your immediate environment

I don't care how many times you want to repeat this garbage, you are wrong.
Flat Earth is NOT the base awareness, nor is it what I feel and experience as my immediate environment.

But more importantly, ask yourself this, Jack. Does being a flat earther make a person a bad or evil person? If not, why do you devote so much of your life to fighting it?

This fundamentally depends on their mentality.
Most FEers end up claiming massive conspiracies which typically results in crap like objecting to people taking precautions during pandemics and climate change denial.
Those actions end up harming loads of people.
So regardless of if they are bad at heart or intend to be, their actions and mentality is harmful and dangerous.

16

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

« on: January 10, 2025, 01:32:55 PM »

FMA is actually not about magic. Alchemy is explicitly called a "science" in canon.

And them calling it science doesn't make it science.

Which ought to tell you something about your own crackpot scientific beliefs.

It tells me how desperate you are to reject reality.
So much so that to try to dismiss it you appeal to pure fantasy as if it says anything about reality.

For the same reason you think this adjustment by pilots is the shortest path.

Lying wont save you.

The great circle is the shortest path and is a line that follows the surface without turning left or right.

With no education would you look at this and tell me if it looks like the shortest path?

With no education I wouldn't know what the "shortest" path is.
With no education, I wouldn't recognise the map.

What you really mean is an incredible selective education which results in me thinking that particular map/projection is an accurate representation without distortion.

But we both better.
So why continue with this dishonest BS?

But on the flat Earth map, you are going due north then cutting across latitude and longitude. I maintain though that if you do the path wrong, you actually waste time instead.

If you do the path wrong, to such an insane degree, you will waste time.
And that happens regardless of which path you try to follow.
So that isn't a reason.

Showing John this map, and why it is a straight line would be better.

Or using a globe, and showing the great circle.
Either way the line of constant latitude is NOT the shortest path.
But you keep rejecting it. And your best reason is "but if you don't follow the path its longer".

If it's still not a straight line, then yeah, fuck you and your RE posturing.

So if reality still doesn't match your fantasy, just fuck me and reality?

So let's look at that great circle above. But this time, we compare to the Flat Earth Map.

Why only your FE map? Why not also a RE? i.e. a globe, to look at the great circle routes?

On the side map, this makes no sense.

And you are the only one pretending it should.
If you want to see if it makes sense on a round Earth, look at a round Earth, not a flat representation which distorts it.

Yet in the southern hemisphere they don't use northern routes. Part of it has to do with heading all the way up then all the way down. But also, because they have their own cutting across latitude path.

Yes, because Earth is round.
If Earth was flat, the shortest route between 2 points of similar latitude would be going further north.
But as Earth is round, that only applies to the northern hemisphere. For the south, they go south.

Notice how much this path skims on the southern portion.

You mean how there are far fewer routes? Which isn't surprising given the population.
Instead of focusing on routes that don't exist, try focusing on the routes which do. The routes which make no sense at all on the flat earth.

17

Flat Earth General / Re: Experiencing Earth as a Flat Earth

« on: January 10, 2025, 03:43:46 AM »

A very roundabout way of saying you see something change.  What does that jarring feel like though?  Is it something like this?

It varies, but generally for me at least it is just at the time of the sudden change, where it feels like I try to process based upon the previous stimulus with the current stimulus causing an overcorrection.

i.e. it isn't the train moving that makes me feel anything, it is once it has left the FOV and there is that sudden change.

And the same feeling can sometimes occur when something unexpected happens, like you go to step onto an escalator, but it isn't moving like you expect.

Not according to you.  You claim you are simply observing that the walls are rotating relative to you without feeling anything.

I don't get dizzy from that.
But getting dizzy doesn't mean feeling motion.
It is still a conflict or abnormal input for your senses.
Some people get dizzy looking at a spinning disc which only takes up part of their vision.
Some get strange feelings just by looking at optical illusions.

Not much conflict for someone who is just  “observing changes in relative distance” though.  If you’re reading a book in a car, the then book is moving with you.

And I don't get travel sick.
And it is still senses not combining in a manner that is usual.
And that is for times where it isn't simply caused by jerk or the like.

18

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

« on: January 09, 2025, 10:16:44 PM »

The "anime is cartoons for kiddos" myth.

No, the "It's fiction with magic so anything can happen, even the impossible" fact.
Appealing to anime to pretend that something happening there must much reality doesn't help your case at all.

Now care to tell us why you are using an equirectangular projection and claiming a clearly not straight line is the shortest path?

19

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

« on: January 09, 2025, 10:14:10 PM »

and how things disappear as they go over it

Why do you keep clinging to that? One of Eric Dubay's main magic tricks is bring objects that have "disappeared" back into frame. If it were really a matter of curvature, this would be impossible. But it's just about focal length.

Have you tried reading what I actually say?
Have you considered responding to what I actually said instead of deflecting onto something else?

I said HOW things disappear, not just that they do.
They disappear from the bottom up, and once gone, they can be brought back into view with better optics. Instead you need to get closer or higher.
Something no FEer can explain or demonstrate happening on a flat surface with the observer and object above the surface.

Quite different to just zooming out enough so you can't see it.

20

Flat Earth General / Re: Experiencing Earth as a Flat Earth

« on: January 09, 2025, 03:55:33 PM »

So you claim you don’t feel the sensation of self motion?  Something that’s been very well researched with all sorts of studies?

But if all you are doing is dispassionately observing that there is relative motion, why would you feel any sort of jarring sensation with the train illusion?

Because naturally when you are doing basically anything, you are using your senses to experience the environment and using that as feedback, creating a feedback loop.
The jarring sensation is from a sudden change in that feedback.

Similarly, why do people feel dizzy if they are put in a room on a stationary platform with the walls spinning around them?

Because the information from different senses is conflicting.

Or why people get travel sick when their senses are telling them conflicting things?

Because of their senses conflicting, causing confusion which leads to nausea.

21

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

« on: January 09, 2025, 03:50:02 PM »

You obviously had a sheltered childhood and have never been on a merry-go-round. Go down to your local kids playground, Jack, jump on the merry-go-round, and give yourself a ride. You obviously never went on a theme park ride as a teenager called, "The "Centrifuge".

I have been on them.
And I know how slow they go.
I'm not talking about ones which spin you really fast.
I'm talking about the kiddy ones, with horses or spaceships or any random thin which slowly goes up and down as it goes around.
On those, I do not feel the centripetal force, because it is too slow for that, just like Earth.

If you took away all your education, interest, and constant reminders from the media and entertainment industry, you too, would probably just get on with life and not give the shape of the earth a second thought.

And as I have explained repeatedly, that doesn't mean I think it is flat.

But as soon as I want to be able to see further, I would realise from plenty of observations, that getting higher allows me to do that, just like a ball.

22

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

« on: January 09, 2025, 12:26:53 PM »

Yep, that's what I'm suggesting, except the kid on the merry go round, feels and experiences motion, the centripetal force, so knows it is the merry go round doing the moving - against the motionless fixed earth. Thanks for the example! 

You see all those things indicating earth is a giant ball, Jack, because you know to look for them. Flat earthers are wilfully blind to them and will never look for them and never see them. The earth being a globe is meaningless to them.

Take away your education and interest in looking for evidence the earth is a globe, and you would see earth exactly as flat earthers do, or like most people, you wouldn't even give it a second thought.

And what you are suggesting is ridiculous.
Unless that merry go round is going very fast, the kid isn't feeling the centripetal force.

If I took away all my education and interest I still wouldn't see Earth as flat or motionless.

23

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

« on: January 09, 2025, 12:24:41 PM »

Now, this seems impossible. How can water come out rather than go in when you remove something?

Do you know what else seems impossible? A rubber person.
A work of fiction isn't a good basis.

Now again, care to tell everyone why you keep using an equirectangular projection, rather than a globe or your own FE model?

24

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

« on: January 09, 2025, 12:22:22 AM »

If viewing Earth through the lens of experiencing, there is no earth curvature to see, the earth is motionless, the sun moves across the sky, the moon and stars move across the sky, and the horizon is flat.

No, I see the curvature, in the form of the horizon, and how things disappear as they go over it, and how it gets further away as I get higher. Just like all other round objects.
I experience nothing to indicate Earth is motionless.
I see the relative motion of the sun, which doesn't indicate which is moving.
Given the entire sky is moving relative to Earth, it makes far more sense for Earth to be rotating.

What you are suggesting is akin to a kid on a merry go round suggesting the merry go round is fixed and the entire universe is rotating around them.

25

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

« on: January 09, 2025, 12:17:54 AM »

Anime knows what's what.

It sure works to describe you.
You don't care for us, because you don't care about the truth.

So, you are certain that I don't know what I can clearly see as the model for great circle, instead telling me that it's the lowest curve

Yes.
If you don't believe me, go and get a physical globe, get a piece of string, and hold it as tight as possible between the 2 points.

For the southern hemisphere the great circle goes further south than either the starting or ending location.
For the northern hemisphere it goes north of both the start and end point.
This is pretty simple to understand.

This is all addressed by simple questions which you fled from in the previous thread.

Assume Earth is a perfect sphere, with a circumference of 40 000 km. You want to fly from 0 degrees east on the equator to 180 degrees east on the equator.
What is the shortest path, and is there single shortest path, or multiple?

What is the length of a path directly along the equator?
What is the length of a path going via the north pole?
What is the length of a path going via the south pole?
What is the length of a path going via a point 45 degrees north at 90 degrees east?
What is the length of a path going via a point 45 degrees south at 90 degrees east?
What is the length of a path going via a point 45 degrees south at 90 degrees west?
What is the length of a path going via a point 61 degrees south at 90 degrees east?


If you honestly understood the model, and could answer those questions, you would realise that all these paths are equal in length, 20 000 km.
And that they are the shortest paths between any 2 locations along the lines.
These are the great circles.
All great circles will pass through the equator twice, 180 degrees apart from each point; or it is the equator.

And when I say that even if it does straighten the line, it's an overkill adjustment that relies on information about how but curve to apply that you probably don't have, in order to combat the latitude

Again, people do have it.
Your wilful ignorance doesn't mean everyone is wilfully ignorant.

then you call me a liar

Because you repeatedly lie to everyone.

This is why I've fundamentally stopped talking to you, Jack.

Because I can so easily demonstrate you are lying to everyone?
And that I call you out when you blatantly lie to everyone, including about things which are blatantly obvious.

The question is why do you keep doing so?
What do you hope to gain by repeatedly lying to everyone, with lies which are so obvious?

Again, anyone with half a brain (which might exclude you) can recognise the Mercator projection and other similar equi-rectangular projections will necessarily distort the RE, so a straight line on it will not necessarily be a straight line on a round Earth; likewise, those familiar with FE with half a brain also know the common model is the north pole centred monopole model.

You are appealing to a map which neither side claims to be an accurate, non-distorted representation.
All so you can pretend your fantasy of travelling along a line of latitude is the shortest path.
In both reality and your FE model, travelling along a line of latitude is a curve and not the shortest, with the sole exception of the equator in reality.

And anyone who has ever tried it understands that dead reckoning does not work. Not without precise computers to accurately measure every change in motion.
If you tried to fly a plane by just setting your compass to go east and heading there, you would likely crash.
That is why planes typically fly either using GPS to monitor position, or to specific points which broadcast a signal allowing you to head towards the source of the signal.

So again, do you actually understand what it is you are arguing for and against?

26

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

« on: January 08, 2025, 12:06:35 PM »

And look at what you have done yet again.
Entirely ignored the topic just to spout more crap.
Cognitive dissonance if you will.
Your cult programming's defence mechanism to stop you thinking about things which clearly show your cult is wrong.

They're called "cognitive dissonance". They are your childhood programming's defense mechanism.

No, cognitive dissonance is where you see clear evidence that shows you are wrong, and then desperately try to dismiss it as fake.
Where you are asked simple questions and need to flee from it.

We recognise Earth isn't flat, because it so horribly fails at matching reality.

It would be like someone telling me, at night, on a full moon, that the moon is hurtling towards Earth and going to crash into it in 1 hour, and unless I give them all my money so I can board their magic space ship to travel to another world to be saved I will die.

I got to see it for myself. He stopped listening, and tbh, I don't think I saw him after that at this club. This is cognitive dissonance, those alarm bells go off, and you stop listening to the other person.

Again, not cognitive dissonance.
That is recognising someone believes complete crap, so you stop listening to them.

If you would like another comparison, start your conversation with them, but then you say you are Nazi and think Hitler was right and didn't do a good enough job. Then he switches off and stops listening because he sees what kind of person you are and no longer values your opinion.

It is far harder to say "No, I definitely don't agree, but you can tell me why you think that way."

And what if they aren't interested in that?
Also notice how you never do that?
Instead you have decided Earth cannot possibly be round, and reject everything about it.

And as I am sure I have told you, I spent time in an actual cult.

And then jumped ship and joined a different cult.
Only now you say it isn't a cult.

If you ever want to break free of your programming, begin by asking one simple question (to yourself, not me).  "Why is flat Earth wrong, and why is round Earth right?"

I have. And have plenty of answers.
Again, have you tried the equivalent?
Why is RE wrong and FE right?

But do you know the biggest issue with that question? If you are just asking yourself, and you don't understand the models you are evaluating, you would be able to answer properly.
Again, look at the dishonest crap you appeal to for a RE.
You aren't showing the RE model is wrong. You are showing your strawman or you massive misunderstanding of the RE is wrong.

As for Eric Dubay

You clearly value him quite a lot, as you continually appeal to his crap rather than trying to think for yourself.
You repeat the same refuted BS that he spouts.

What was it that those guys at the "South Pole" said? Something about "carefully looking at the observations"

Yes, something you absolutely refuse to do.

Now again, care to stop with all the dishonest BS, and try answering the questions?
1 - With your FE fantasy how does the sun magically illuminate the clouds from below, including so people above the clouds can see the sun shining up from below?
2 - How does the sun magically "angle" itself to appear to set? Not merely the result expected from perspective, but appearing even lower.
3 - Why can't a RE have the sun illuminate clouds from below just before sunrise and just after sunset?
4 - What magic is causing the sun to magically shine like a spotlight so it only illuminated the region around the subsolar point rather than shining outwards in all directions?
5 - Can you show anything wrong with the diagrams I have provided about the eclipse, without blatantly lying about what they are trying to show, or the slight inaccuracies because some are just flipped versions of the others because I couldn't be bothered redrawing them or that it isn't too scale?
6 - How does your parabola magic work to explain the observed position of the sun? Especially noting the problems shown in the diagrams provided in the link above.
We know it can't simply be the sun above shining straight down.
We know it can't be a massive sun above shining straight down.
We know it can't simply be the sun going straight to the person and hitting the parabola.

27

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

« on: January 08, 2025, 11:56:56 AM »

Wow, the Book of Things I Found Out You Don't Know is growing in length.

You mean the book of things you continually spout pure BS about without understanding, or just intentionally lying to everyone?

Because you haven't shown that I don't know at all.

It is C, if your intent (as #3) is to save time by moving across the Earth.

No, that would be if Earth is flat.
I stick to reality, where B is the shortest path.
Note that the image you provided is not of path C.
You have instead decided to move to the north where path B and C are similar.

On any curve, if you are being honest, converting the straight map to a disc or sphere shows the latitude lines as curves, so to cut across involves curving against it.

No, cutting across is going "straight" not curving against it.
The latitude lines are the curve (with the exception of the equator).

However, since we do not actually know the among of curve you would need to render this straight

No, YOU don't know.
Fortunately, these days it is trivial with flight computers.
In the past, it was also quite easy by using landmarks or celestial navigation.

Trying to fly the entire route on nothing more that dead reckoning would likely get you killed.
Like Amelia Earhart.

This also means you can't just fly a constant bearing.
Especially not using a compass given that you would need to factor in the changing magnetic declination.

And also fortunately, map makers had mapped out the world well enough by then and you could make a variety of different map projections.
This includes ones like an azimuthal equidistant projection centred on the location of airports.
And otherwise, there were formulas you could use.
And if you had a globe, you could use a piece of string.

and you risk moving more distance

So to avoid adding a tiny bit more distance, you add a massive amount of extra distance for no reason?
Your argument makes no sense at all.

latitude distortion cannot actually be felt

Just how are you expecting to "feel" it?
This distortion is simply a result of projecting a sphere onto a flat surface.

Earth doesn't orbit

Your wilful rejection of reality does not change it.
But the orbit has nothing to do with this.

you are making people dizzy and sick (while they call it "jet lag") by performing this path.

How?
Again, you spout pure BS with no justification at all.

They don't test time

Given the massive differences in distances, this isn't a matter of not testing times.
This is a matter of if Earth was flat the plane would run out of fuel mid-flight and crash into the ocean.

"I'm a crappy pilot who thinks it's justified flying an indirect course."

That would be YOU!
You would be the incredibly crappy pilot choosing to fly an indirect course because you think it is better to fly along the lines of latitude instead of a more direct path.
You are literally here arguing against them taking a more direct path.

Do you not realise the delusional crap you are spouting? Do you even understand what you are arguing for?

28

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

« on: January 08, 2025, 12:32:20 AM »

What? You think I'm unique in this?

No, I know plenty of people are trolls like you.

Round Earthers (who aren't stupid enough to believe it themselves) do this on a daily basis.

Telling kids the truth, or your best understanding, is not lying to them.
You are intentionally lying to children, just to screw with them.

That shows just how much of a POS you are.

At least I was doing it as a joke.

You mean you were just doing it as a joke, to screw with them; instead of being honest to them, like the people you accuse of lying.

And this is what I mean about the sunrise that I mentioned elsewhere.

You mean your BS which has already been debunked.

Again, imagine going back in time to when sundials were used to indicate time.
And then try telling someone they are wrong because the sundial says it is 6 am when you say it should be midday.
They will think you are insane, or a complete imbecile.

Again, the period of Earth's rotation is NOT the same as a solar day.

Repeating the same lies just shows how dishonest you are your cult leader are.

Again, the RE model matches reality, with the stars appearing to drift over the course of a year.

This has been explained to you repeatedly, with you entirely incapable of showing any fault with the explanation and instead just repeating the same dishonest, delusional BS.
Again, the period of Earth's rotation is roughly 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds.
So if you want to go 91 "days", where a day is taken to be a 24 hour period, that isn't 91 rotations of Earth.
That is 91.25 rotations.
Notice the extra .25 rotations, which puts it so the same part is facing the sun?

If you want to go for 182 days, that is not 182 rotations of Earth, it is 182.50.
Again, notice the extra half a rotation?
The same thing happens all year round.

All you are doing is continually lying to everyone and showing everyone how dishonest you are.

This doesn't debunk the RE, it supports it.
And if you do it properly, and observe the analemma the sun appears to trace it, it further supports the RE, and raises serious questions for the FE.

And this rotation period is not just ad hoc made up to avoid the problem you pretend exists.
It can be directly measured.
You can even do this yourself with a decent camera. It must be able to save the timestamp of the photo, must have an accurate clock, and must be able to be mounted on a tripod; ideally it can take timelapses, and if not, you have to be able to remotely trigger it so you aren't bumping it every time you take a picture.

Go and set a camera up fixed on a rigid tripod so it can't move. Set it up at night with plenty of stars visible, and where it will be fine to sit for over a day.
Set up the camera to look at the night sky, ideally focusing on a constellation which is visible, and ideally with some decent zoom.
Now, set it to take a picture of the sky every second. If you have the ability to control it remotely, you can set it to do so for a few minutes, then come back and resume after 23 hours.
Then you can stop after 25 hours. (so 1 hour either way of a mean solar day).
If that would take too much memory, you can take pictures less often, but more is better.

Now time to analyse them.
Find a good image from the start of the timelapse, and note the time it was taken.
Now skip forward 24 hours (or if you want to make it faster on yourself, 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds) and compare the images.
Do the stars line up and if so how well?
Now you want to find the best match, by looking through the image, going forwards or back, to see the one which matches your first one best.
Then look at how much time has elapsed.


Now again, care to stop with all the dishonest BS, and try answering the questions?
1 - With your FE fantasy how does the sun magically illuminate the clouds from below, including so people above the clouds can see the sun shining up from below?
2 - How does the sun magically "angle" itself to appear to set? Not merely the result expected from perspective, but appearing even lower.
3 - Why can't a RE have the sun illuminate clouds from below just before sunrise and just after sunset?
4 - What magic is causing the sun to magically shine like a spotlight so it only illuminated the region around the subsolar point rather than shining outwards in all directions?
5 - Can you show anything wrong with the diagrams I have provided about the eclipse, without blatantly lying about what they are trying to show, or the slight inaccuracies because some are just flipped versions of the others because I couldn't be bothered redrawing them or that it isn't too scale?
6 - How does your parabola magic work to explain the observed position of the sun? Especially noting the problems shown in the diagrams provided in the link above.
We know it can't simply be the sun above shining straight down.
We know it can't be a massive sun above shining straight down.
We know it can't simply be the sun going straight to the person and hitting the parabola.

29

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

« on: January 08, 2025, 12:11:22 AM »

Wow, quoting a post from 120 days ago.

Yes, because you are bringing up the same refuted BS.
The BS you fled from last time after it was refuted.

Picture #2, I would agree is garbage, which is why I'm scratching it out.

That isn't you agreeing it is garbage. That is you baselessly asserting it is garbage to dismiss reality.
So no, lets not scratch it out.

Picture 2 is a view of a globe, positioned so the path B runs along the middle of the view.
It shows the B is a "straight line" on the surface of the sphere, i.e. a great circle.

You lying wont change that.

You indeed are exaggerating this curve. Which is part of the problem. How in the hell do you know how much to make this great circle so that it is not in fact too great? You don't.

Simple math, or if you want to do it physically, get a string, and hold it tight between the 2 points on a physical globe.
Not hard at all.
And no, I', not exaggerating this curve at all.

In #2, A would realistically go slightly down arced over the line of latitude

Why would it go down?
It is following the line of latitude.
That makes it go up in the image.

but you can see from #3, that B actually dips so far it almost touches the Antarctic!

Yes, just how ridiculous the FE map is.

On the other hand, while in #3, C is a straight line, but it goes more than double the arc that I depicted here.

Yes, it follows the path that is expected if Earth was flat.
It is so long it is ridiculous.

Look. Yellow is the along the latitude A line

Yes. It is the line shown as A in the diagram.
This is only straight in image 1.
Image 1 is not a representation of your fantasy FE, and it distorts line for the RE.

Blue is the arc line I drew

Which you drew based on nothing.
That is NOT a great circle.
The easy way to tell is that it is in the south, yet curves to the north.
That isn't how it works at all.
It didn't even match up with the black line.

Yes, you are free to use this great circle if you want if you think it'll work. I won't oppose you (though I think it's stupid).

The great circle is the line labelled B, not C.
But thanks for agreeing that the FE is stupid, because that C is the shortest path on a FE, as shown by the third diagram.
And that green lie you drew didn't even make it up high enough for that path.
So thanks for saying the FE is stupid.

Meanwhile, if Earth was flat, both A and B would be stupid paths.
Yet A is the path you are advocating for, and B is the path that planes actually take (approximately).

Why do you keep trying to use an equirectangular projection?
REers know that distorts the straightest and shortest path.
FEers reject it as well.

If you want to argue and appear in any way intelligent, you need to use a model which you are actually trying to discuss. That is the globe for the RE, and whatever fantasy model you want for your FE, likely a north pole monopole model.

30

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

« on: January 07, 2025, 12:24:28 PM »

As a prank to a kid, I was telling him that this color was red.

So you get your kicks by lying to children?

If your teacher is dumb, wrong, or evil, how would you possibly know unless you checked it out?
...
Unconvinced, I'll be okay without learning that. For I am unconvinced by what was taught to me.

You have made no honest attempt to check it out.
Likewise, you have made to attempt to truly learn it
You instead decided you don't like it and dismissed it.
You make no attempt to understand, an important first step before checking it out.
You instead resort to strawmen which in no way refute the RE to pretend the RE is wrong.

In order to actually check it out, you need to first start by understanding it.
Until you understand it, including understanding what the model predicts, you have no way of testing it.

Continually resorting to strawmen like your tiny balls or pretending a solar day should be equal in length to the rotational period of Earth and that a sidereal should magically be a different length solar day, or pretending people in the south are magically hanging upside down is NOT checking it out.
That is dismissing it with dishonest BS which in no way demonstrates any fault with it.

Again, you can quite easily check it out.
See if you can have a light above a table directly illuminate the table from below.
It can't.
That shows your FE fantasy is wrong. Yet you keep ignoring it.
Then try with a globe, with a little fake cloud stuck out from it, and see how if you rotate it correctly you can get that illuminated from below.

Now stop with all the dishonest BS, and try answering the questions:
1 - With your FE fantasy how does the sun magically illuminate the clouds from below, including so people above the clouds can see the sun shining up from below?
2 - How does the sun magically "angle" itself to appear to set? Not merely the result expected from perspective, but appearing even lower.
3 - Why can't a RE have the sun illuminate clouds from below just before sunrise and just after sunset?
4 - What magic is causing the sun to magically shine like a spotlight so it only illuminated the region around the subsolar point rather than shining outwards in all directions?
5 - Can you show anything wrong with the diagrams I have provided about the eclipse, without blatantly lying about what they are trying to show, or the slight inaccuracies because some are just flipped versions of the others because I couldn't be bothered redrawing them or that it isn't too scale?
6 - How does your parabola magic work to explain the observed position of the sun? Especially noting the problems shown in the diagrams provided in the link above.
We know it can't simply be the sun above shining straight down.
We know it can't be a massive sun above shining straight down.
We know it can't simply be the sun going straight to the person and hitting the parabola.