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 - JackBlack

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 670
I notice you are still fleeing from the topic.
You must really hate the fact that the observed path of the sun destroys your FE fantasy.

...Ever been to a tide pool? I don't mean a natural tide pool like forms in the ocean. Like the thing in Water Country USA.
Oh, they're called "wave pools." Sorry, my mistake.
You mean the thing which requires lots of power and moving parts to keep things moving?

So what is doing that for your fantasy Earth?

A simple hole doesn't help.
Describing how gravity causes tides to flow in and out of rivers doesn't help your case either.
You need to explain what is powering it.

I notice how you have entirely fled from the topic.
Is this because you know it destroys the FE fantasy?
Is it because you know you have no explanation for why the sun appears to rise due east and set due west for everyone on the equinox and pass directly overhead those on the equator; while also rising south of east and setting south of west for everyone during the southern summer and rising north of east and setting north of west for everyone during the northern summer; while your BS model indicates it should pretty much ALWAYS rise north of east and set north of west?

So because you can't honestly defend the FE model, you need to continually lie about the RE model, which you are yet to show a single fault with?

If you want to spout all that BS about the RE, why not start a separate thread?

You're right. The idea that a blue and green ball in the space swings around an even bigger yellow ball is about the intellectual level of a Sunday School lesson.
They were clearly referring to the idea of a FE with a celestial sphere.

But your strawman of the RE applies quite well as well, as your strawman is the equivalent of such crap.

You're out there learning to worship the god of atheism.
There is no god of atheism.
I get it, you need to ridicule the acceptance of reality, trying to pretend it is a religion, because you can't come up with anything rational to object to it or support your delusional BS.

Only as I got older, my faith in God developed.
As I got older, I decided to look into the religion I was raised with, and saw it was full of holes, with no reason to believe it all, and I discarded it as childish garbage.

But that Sunday School lesson of the Earth spinning around the sun didn't get any more convincing.
Considering you were growing faith in religious BS, you clearly weren't developing rational thinking skills or looking for evidence.
So that isn't surprising at all.

You think I haven't thought this through before I committed to the idea of a flat Earth?
You clearly haven't thought it through honestly and rationally, with an open mind, while looking for evidence.
Instead you appear to have accepted the countless BS arguments put forward by con men to pretend Earth is flat.
This is shown by the fact you need to continually lie about the RE to pretend there is a problem, and you are entirely incapable of defending the FE.
You even make arguments against the RE which directly contradict each other. e.g. claiming water should magically stick to a tiny ball even though there is the much greater attraction to Earth; and then directly contradicting that by claiming that the gravity of the sun (which is weaker than that of Earth in the vicinity of Earth, and even more so when you focus on the tidal forces) should magically rip everything off Earth.

Just like in this thread, a massive problem for the FE is pointed out, and you instantly jump to dishonesty to pretend there is no problem by a projection of the RE which you know don't believe correctly shows the position of the continents on your fantasy Earth.
And now you entirely deflect with this load of BS rather than even attempting to address the issue.

You have also shown in previous posts that you can't handle reality and are trying to escape into a fantasy.

So no, you clearly haven't THOUGHT this through.

Unless you are just a pathetic troll, knowingly spouting BS.

I know pretty well that if I tried to recreate the model, I'd immediately run into trouble when discussing how water behaves.
You mean to make your strawman.
Again, Earth is not a tiny ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.

If you want that to be an honest physical model, then you need to have it in free fall well outside the Roche limit of any other significant body.
A tiny ball in your sink is NOT a model of the RE. Not even close.
But you can easily make a digital model, i.e. a simulation, which does work.

And it wouldn't behave like the model says.
No, it behaves exactly like the model predicts.
The water, will be effected by gravitational attraction to all objects with mass.
The most significant attraction will be down to Earth, so the water will go down to Earth.
It will not magically stick to your tiny balls.

Sticking to your tiny balls (other than small amounts due to surface tension) would defy the model.

Northern hemisphere would be a desert, southern would be underwater.
Why do you continually insist that the north pole is the top?
There is absolutely no basis for it. Especially considering I can just flip your BS over and have the north pole at the bottom.
This is the massive distinction between your dishonest BS and reality.
In reality, with Earth in space, there is no magical universal down.
You have no basis for any way is down.
That is until you are close to Earth, at which point Earth provides the basis, where down is roughly towards the centre of Earth. (Or the equivalent for any other massive body).

But in your BS, you do have a basis, the massive ball your tiny balls are sitting on.

This has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Yet you continue to ignore it and continue to assert, with absolutely no basis, that the southern hemisphere is down.

Yeah, yeah, "You're so stupid! It rotates and tilts! Also the Earth's gravity is pulling that water down! That's why you're seeing the water settle like this!"
No, I don't respond with that.
Except the first part.
You either have negative IQ, or you are intentionally lying to everyone.
The rotation has NOTHING to do with the dishonest BS you are spouting now.
It is GRAVITY! i.e. the reason things fall.

You have also had that pointed out countless times.
Yet you continue to ignore it and instead continue to lie to everyone, repeatedly pretending we think rotation is the magic reason.

This imaginary force of gravity doesn't exist
No, the REAL force of gravity does.
As all the evidence shows.

again objects settle because density is greater than buoyancy.
You mean WEIGHT is greater than buoyancy.
i.e. the force of gravity trying to pull objects down is greater than the upwards force from the pressure gradient in the fluid due to gravity.
Notice how that uses gravity?

Without that, being denser provides no reason at all for an object to move in any direction.

Centripetal force (or was it centrifugal force?) pushes the object away from the center.
Yet you keep lying by pretending people claim this is what causes gravity.

Is it because you know if you did it honestly it would show your claims are pure BS?
Is it because you know the only way you can pretend the RE model doesn't work is by repeatedly lying to everyone?

Take away all that crap, and put water in a basin, and it naturally behaves like it does on Earth.
Yes, being attracted to Earth.
Your "model" is an honest as placing water on a plate and complaining that it doesn't stay on the plate when held sideways.

Flat Earth General / Re: extreme weather forecast
« on: December 03, 2023, 01:13:50 PM »
Earlier on this thread, I did a chemical equations thing for all types of plastic. Except for PVC (poly vinyl chlorate), all plastics are basic bitch hydrocarbons.
No, they aren't.
There are plenty of plastics which contain other elements.
For example, Nylon, PMMA, PET, PBT, PEEK, PTFE and polyurethane.
Although some do just contain oxygen as an extra.

And of the main plastics produced, PVC is the only one containing chlorine.

But as well as that you have all sorts of plasticisers, which can include phosphorous and sulphur.
And you then need to consider what is with the plastic.
What chemicals have the plastics been used to store?
What elements are inside it?

But again, in order to have the advantage of just a "basic bitch hydrocarbon" you need complete combustion, which most people wont care about when burning plastic.

In fact, one of these plastics is chemically identical to propane.
No, it's not. If it was chemically identical to propane, it would be propane.
PE and PP are basically a very long chain hydrocarbon (assuming it is pure).
But that doesn't mean it burns like propane or butane or hexane or the like.
That is because the much longer chain significantly lowers the vapour pressure. You can't easily boil the plastic. Instead it thermally decomposes.
This makes it much harder to burn and much more likely to result in incomplete combustion which results in things like PAHs.

When we are done with our plastic, the safest thing we can do with it is burn it so hot that it turns back to its native elements. The natural world can probably take care of it then.
No, that is pumping out more CO2 which nature can't easily handle.
You seem to prefer fish dye from lack of oxygen in the water because of the rising temperatures, rather than a few fish choking on plastic.

The best thing to do with the plastic would be to recycle it.
If you can't do that, you shouldn't be making plastic in the first place.

You are the hypocrite, as you say burning oil based substances is evil, but won't allow them to burn, even to use cars to get away from these "pollution factories".
You are the one advocating for those pollution factories.
They can also use an electric car, or walk, or use a horse.

You claim it's terrible to burn oil, but are okay with all of our fish choking to death.
No, we aren't.
We don't want plastic in the ocean.
Your position is so pathetic you need to blatantly lie about us to try to vilify us, while ignoring all the damage you are defending.

Still fleeing from your lies about planes I see.
I shall just take that as an admission of defeat and that you fully accept you were blatantly lying to everyone and that you know planes do not need to magically descend to stay level over a round Earth, and that if you ever bring it up again, I can just quote this, as your admission of defeat and show that you are lying yet again.
Thanks for confirmation of this by way of silence.
Thanks for admitting you have been lying to us, intentionally.

It is clear evidence that Earth is flat, because this will only happen like that on a flat surface, and not on any other surface.
Repeating the same lie wont help you.

Over a flat surface, an object below the elevation of your eyes will continually appear to rise.
If you pick any object some distance away, below your eye level, then everything at its elevation or lower at a lesser distance will appear lower, making it impossible for the ground below it to obstruct the view.

So if Earth was flat, we would NEVER see objects above Earth appear to sink into Earth with the bottom being obstructed.

That requires a curved Earth, where initially perspective will win and make the object appear higher, until at some distance the curvature will start to win and the object will appear to sink with the bottom being obstructed.

So again, directly contrary to your blatant lie the shape required is a round or curved surface, not a flat one.

This would not be what weíd see if we were on a curved
surface, but when we donít have a curved surface, it is hard to imagine what it would look like, what is different about it, compared to a flat surface.
Good thing we have plenty of flat surface and round surfaces which we can easily check with.
Unfortunately for you, reality shows that round surfaces match what is seen with Earth.

But it is also trivial to use computer software to simulate what a surface would look like. And again, a round surface matches Earth, not a flat surface.

Have you ever seen a drawing or painting that uses perspective in it?
You mean the simple one where everything just gets smaller as it gets closer to the horizon with nothing ever having the bottom magically disappear, or having the tops curve down?

That is because it is simple to do, not because it matches reality.

If Earths surface was curved, the surface would curve more and more with more distance outward
That's right (ignoring technicalities).
So eventually you will reach a point where this curvature will win over perspective.
So the ground will initially appear to rise, before it reaches a peak and starts going back down.
That peak is called the horizon.

This is exactly what we see.
Again, this is clearly demonstrated by this image:

Conversely, if Earth was flat, this never happens.
You never reach that peak because you have nothing acting to oppose perspective.
So instead, the ground just keeps on rising at an ever decreasing rate.

yet we see it rising up more and more with more distance outward
Only when perspective is beating curvature. i.e. at short distances.

A curved surface constantly curves downward, more and more downward over distance.  If a ship went outward on a curved ocean, it would slowly go out of view from the bottom of it, then halfway up it, then all of it would be out of view.
Just like we see, at least if the ship is large enough to resolve.

If Earth was flat, that would never happen, and all you would need to do is zoom in, until the atmosphere makes the entire ship too blurry to resolve.
So the ship would fade away. It would NEVER appear to sink into Earth. it would NEVER have the bottom obstructed while the top is still clearly resolved.

Again, what we see matches a round Earth, not a flat Earth.

Perspective would still make the ship appear to rise, but not as high up as on our flat surface.
And with this you admit your previous claims were blatant lies.
With this you admit that you would see a round surface initially appear to rise.
That it shouldn't just magically go down straight away.

A curved surface would nullify this effect, because it curves downward more and more with distance.
You literally just basically admitted that is a lie, so why repeat the same pathetic lie?

Again, the comparison is quite simple:

For a flat Earth, the surface continually appears to rise, without end, just rising more and more slowly.
For a round Earth, the surface initially appears to rise while perspective wins, but eventually the curvature becomes significant enough for it to win and the ground to appear to sink (assuming you could see it through the closer ground). This causes the horizon and explains what is observed in reality.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: They've lied to the world about the stars
« on: December 03, 2023, 01:51:48 AM »
The effects of atmosphere do not, have not, will not cause motionless objects to appear in constant, endless motion
Because intelligent, honest people (i.e. not you) recognise the effects of the atmosphere and don't think it is in motion.

But if I accept your dishonest, stupid BS of that actually appearing as motion, in order to stop it you need the atmosphere to be perfectly still.

Otherwise it is just a matter of how much.

Again, can you take a video of a 1 m wide object from a distance of 10 km through ground level atmosphere showing it perfectly still?
If not, stop claiming the atmosphere magically stops moving to allow things to appear perfectly still.

Or if you want an easier one, do you have a zoomed in video of the moon, showing a portion with a similar angular size to Saturn, with that part of the moon appearing stationary?

Again, the videos of the moon I provided demonstrate you are lying.

Notice that Saturn is clearly seen when in motion, a constant endless motion. Nothing around Saturn, or Saturn itself, look blurry at all from any effect of atmosphere.
Care to provide an example of this?
Because the videos of Saturn typically just show Saturn, with NOTHING around it. So just what are you claiming is not blurry? The black background of space?

And Saturn does look blurry. You have even admitted that yourself.

No atmospheric effects act out eternally either, they are momentary phenomenon.
Again, that is claiming the atmosphere can be perfectly still.
The evidence demonstrates that the effect is constant, but the magnitude varies.

You cannot defend their claims
I'm not the one who brought their claims up.
I'm not one who boldly proclaimed they were lying.
I'm not the one boldly proclaiming Saturn moves around all crazy.
YOU did that.
So all I need to do is show you have not supported your claim of them lying.

And again, the only reason you brought it up was to try to shift the burden because you couldn't justify your delusional claims.

because thereís no evidence supporting them as true, while all our evidence shows they were made up.
Again, repeating the same lies wont help you.
You rejecting the evidence supporting them doesn't mean there is none.
And you are yet to provide any evidence which shows they were made up.

So far, the other models of that telescope show Saturn
With the same distorted view.
Where we can see the distortion varies depending upon the conditions and the device used to view.
We see that poor optics or bad conditions results in a much more distorted view, and better optics with better conditions result in a less distorted view.
The logical conclusion to that is even better optics and even better conditions can prove an even better view, without as much distortion.

Youíre running out of excuses, but will make up more and more anyway.
Again, the one continually clinging to excuses here is you.
You are the one refusing to justify your claims.
You are the one making excuses to pretend you shouldn't need to justify your claims.
You are the one who blatantly lied and then fled from that lie after it was exposed.

I canít wait to see future videos of Saturn with ever better telescopes, the motion will leave no more doubt or let you make up any more excuses.
Again, YOU are the one making excuses, not me.
You will just dismiss them as lies, like you do with the space probes from NASA.
So no, you will continue to make excuses.
There is already no doubt for any honest person. But we both know you are not honest. You will continue to lie to everyone.

There is conclusive evidence which proves they lied, or made it all up.
Then provide it.
As you are yet to do so.
So far all the evidence you have appealed to is entirely consistent with their claim.
You are yet to provide anything that shows they lied.

If you donít believe it is even evidence
I have explained why it is not evidence of your claims.
You not liking that doesn't mean the burden is magically on me.

Again, you need a telescope as good or better with conditions as good or better.

You appealing to crap does not mean the burden magically shifts to me.
So stop making excuses.

You think it would support your belief, and ask me to buy 3 or 4 of them to give away, and prove Iím wrong?
No, I have explained what you need to support YOUR claim.
You have continually made excuses to not get anything that could actually support your claim, as if you know it will show you are lying to everyone.
The burden remains on you.

There are so many flaws which prove your magical force is nonsense, itís hard to count them all.
Then how about you stop with the pathetic BS about origin, and instead try to provide a single one, because you are yet to show any fault with gravity.

Youíve claimed there is a force within the Earth, or itís Ďcoreí, that holds everything down to its surface
No, I haven't. That is your strawman.
I have stated that there is a force of attraction between mass.
i.e. mass attracts other mass with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

and adjusts how much strength of force
There is no magical adjustment.
Like all forces, it is proportional to something.
Gravity is proportional to mass.

How exactly would a force know every objects mass from miles away
This is just you objecting to the idea of forces (and plenty of other things)
This is nothing special about gravity.

How does a fan know how large a sail is?
How does the sun know how large a solar panel is?
How does a magnet know how magnetic something is?
How does whatever is generating an electric field know what the charge on something is?

Your wilful ignorance doesn't make a flaw.

Except it would also pull down helium balloons
And it does. If you have a helium filled balloon in a vacuum chamber, it does fall.
What you are intentionally ignoring so you can LIE to everyone is the air, which has a pressure gradient which pushes the balloon up.

Again, it is like you are claiming a light kid on a see-saw going up is refuting gravity because you are intentionally ignoring the much heavier kid on the other side.

Repeating the same refuted BS just shows how dishonest you are and how desperate you are to pretend there are problems with gravity.
It has been explained why this is not a flaw at all so many times it isn't funny.
Yet you repeat this same dishonest BS because you have no actual flaws.

No force is needed, either.
Yet you cannot explain why things fall.
And all the evidence shows that if you want to move something, you need a force.

Again, the fact that moving an object to the right does not cause it to fall to the left demonstrates your origin claim is pure BS.
The only way you could hope to have any chance of saving it is if you claim Earth is a perfect sphere and everything originated at the centre.

remain on the surface from our greater mass and density than that of air, do not sink down through the surface, because it has more mass and density than we do.
And more delusional BS.

You simply must have a force to explain your ball Earth speeding through space and spinning around, that would fling us off the Earth like a tiny bug!
We must have a force because a force is needed.
If your delusional BS was true, no force would be needed, not even with a RE in space.

And notice your blatant hypocrisy?
You are happy to boldly proclaim a force is needed to keep us from flying off Earth.
But you lie to everyone claiming no force is needed to oppose the pressure gradient trying to push everything up.
Why one and not the other?

So even after all that, still no flaws.
Just the same pathetic lies.

When you cannot find any object on Earth, which was not always on Earth, and when no object has landed on Earth from elsewhere
We have, you just lie about.
You have NOTHING to support your entirely worthless and entirely baseless claim that everything magically originated on Earth.
It is based upon nothing more than your wilful ignorance and wilful rejection of reality.

We werenít here to see things before we came to exist, so itís impossible to prove it, or prove otherwise, either.
It is trivial to prove otherwise, with the countless observations of things from space coming down to Earth.
Your wilful rejection of that because it doesn't match your fantasy doesn't help your case. It just shows how dishonest you are, how little you care about the truth, how you are willing to reject any part of reality to try to prop up your fantasy.

But thanks for admitting your claim is entirely basis and you have no way to prove it.

But based on the evidence that exists
You mean your wilful rejection of the evidence.
Or alternatively, based upon only the evidence you accept.
That is not all the evidence that exists.

we also know that nothing has come to Earth from elsewhere, in thousands of years either.
And how do you know that?
The closest you have gotten is NOT knowing; coming up with crazy fantasy explanations for meteorites.

So if you wanted even a shred of integrity, that gives you NOT knowing.
If you were honest, and actually followed the evidence, then it would be knowing things have come from space, and yet they still fall down.

If you think that meteorites or comets have come down to Earth from Ďspaceí, weíd have more than the same two objects coming from Ďspaceí all the time by now, just the same two objects and nothing else, would already make no sense at all. If it were true, that is
Yet again you just baselessly assert garbage with no justification at all.
Why should other things have come down? What others things should have come down?

But we have been over all of your BS before.

Stop with this pathetic BS because it doesn't help you at all.

What would make your argument that all things originated from elsewhere BUT on Earth, be more likely than my claim they all DID originate on Earth?
Why must you continually lie about other people's arguments?
My argument is that SOME things have come down, as shown by all the evidence. The countless observations of objects from space coming to Earth.
That is what makes it more likely.

The evidence supports my claim
Lying will not help you.
The evidence shows you are wrong.

All regions of the air are less dense than most objects are, which is why all objects fall through the air downward at the same rate of acceleration and speed, and maximum speed.
Again, WHY?
What magic causes the object to go down? You have no reason for it at all.
And you are wrong, it is NOT the same rate.
The rate is measured to vary with location.

Higher air pressure at lower altitudes does not push objects upward
Yes it does.
The effects of pressure gradients are quite well established.
If you have an object with high pressure on one side and low pressure on the other, the fluid pushes the object from the higher to the low pressure.

So yes, the air, having a higher pressure below the object, pushes it up.

This is an inescapable fact that you need to deal with.

Pressure gradients have nothing to do with it. They all fall at the same speed through all pressure gradients.
Pressure gradients are very important, and explain why objects immersed in a fluid appear to weigh less and as an extension why objects less dense than the fluid goes up.

Again, this all makes perfect sense with gravity, as this pressure gradient is a direct result of gravity, and so the upwards force from it is a result from gravity as well.

It makes no sense without such a force.

The fact is, all things are on the surface, and exist on the surface.
Holding a ball up refutes that "fact" of yours.
It isn't a fact, it is delusional BS.

all things originate on the surface
That is your baseless claim, refuted by evidence, and which you are yet to even attempt to support except through blatantly lying to everyone with further baseless claims and wilful rejection of evidence.

Everything exists on the Earth, on its surface or in its waters, that is where all things were first created
Firstly, PROVE IT!
Stop just asserting delusional BS.

Secondly, and vastly more importantly, YOUR ORIGIN BS HAS BEEN REFUTED COUNTLESS TIMES!
Things don't magically go back to their origin.

So why would God need to create a force to hold us down to the surface, or pull us down to the surface if above it?
You can leave all your religious BS out of it, and stick to reality.

We know there is a force, because we can feel it resisting us when we lift heavy objects.
We know this force is proportional to mass, because the heavier the object, the harder it is to lift.

When you always think of the Earth is that all around it, is an endless universe, with stars above Earth being trillions of miles away, and Earth is a ball, speeding through endless space, youíll never understand why there is no such force that exists, no need to exist, to create it, to do so would make no sense, no logic to create, it would be useless and pointless.
You mean I will never understand your delusional BS?
And instead, I will stick to reality, where a force is needed to accelerate objects to make them go down, and to resist those trying to lift it up?
That such a force makes perfect sense and is based upon mountains of evidence with you unable to show a single fault?

When there is no endless universe above the Earth, and the Earths surface is flat, and covered from above by the Firmament, with air and Sun and moon and stars below the Firmament, and all things on Earth were created to have more mass and density than the air above Earth, that is what makes things which have to first be PUT UP into air, fall down through it to the surface again.
IT takes a force to move an object to the right. That doesn't magically make it fall back to the left.

There is nothing special about directionality unless you have something to make it special.

For Earth, what makes it special is gravity, a force acting towards mass.
Things go down, because that is where the large amount of mass is.
Things don't just magically go down, they go to Earth.

Density cannot explain that, as density has no justification for the directionality.

Your origin BS cannot explain that, as the only justification it has for the directionality doesn't work.
If things did magically go back to their origin then they should go to a single point.
So if you move it to the right of that point, it should fall back to the left.

If I asked you how helium balloons can rise upward in air
And I explained how.
GRAVITY creates a pressure gradient in the air, due to the lower layers of air having to support the air above.
Again, this pressure gradient is directly measurable.

This means there is an upwards force acting on EVERYTHING in the air.
This means gravity, through the pressure gradient of the air, is exerting an upwards force on the balloon.
The net force on the object is then the sum of the downwards force directly due to gravity, and the upwards force indirectly due to gravity acting through the pressure gradient of the air.
If the downwards force is greater, it falls. If the upwards force is greater, it rises.

There is no problem with that, which is why you have made absolutely no attempt at refuting this explanation.
Instead you just blatantly lie to everyone by pretending buoyancy is just a made up force, entirely ignoring the fact that it is a logical consequence of gravity and the fact that the pressure gradient is experimentally verifiable and measurable.

If you want to pretend gravity doesn't exist, then you need an explanation for what is causing this pressure gradient, and an explanation for why objects defy this pressure gradient to go down.

unless there is some sort of force that exists above the air, PULLING them UPWARD
No, there is the air the object is in with a pressure gradient which is directly measurable which is pushing the object up.

it actually is due to their relative density to that of air, and that of water, which causes things to rise upward within air or water, it is not due to some sort of force at all
Again, density explains nothing.
You need a force acting to accelerate the object.

Why should a helium filled balloon go up?
Why should a lump of led go down?
If I break off a piece of stone from an outcropping, why should it fall away from that outcropping and go down?
If I kick a ball upwards and to the right, why does it follow a roughly parabolic trajectory where it goes down?

Stop just repeating the same refuted BS and start dealing with the refutation of that BS.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: They've lied to the world about the stars
« on: December 02, 2023, 08:42:07 PM »
Iíve already shown ALL the evidence proving they lied
No, you haven't.
You have used inferior telescopes and inferior conditions and made no attempt to show that they couldn't have seen what they claimed; nor have you made any attempt to show it isn't distortion in your evidence.

The closest you have come to an honest attempt at that is appealing to other celestial objects like the moon.
The problem is that you blatantly lied by claiming you will always see it identical each frame, when in fact the opposite is quite often true as shown in the videos I provided, which you then fled from after first trying to lie about them.

Again, the evidence you are appealing to shows a different view, with different amounts of distortion. This shows that it is not the motion of Saturn, at least not for all of it.

So you are yet to provide any evidence that they lied.

OTHER telescope that you try claiming WOULD be evidence, but for YOUR claim!
Repeating the same lie wont help you. It would be evidence for YOUR CLAIM!
Not mine.

But of course, you then say I must buy MORE of the same telescope and give them away to other people!!
As opposed to you demanding that they should allow everyone to use their telescopes.
It just shows how ridiculous your demands are.

This shows that youíre simply looking for any excuse
Quite the opposite.
YOU are the one looking for excuses.
First you say it must all be fake because you haven't been allowed to look through all the different telescopes.
Then you repeatedly lied by claiming such telescopes can't be bought.
Even after I posted a link, you lied by claiming no such link was ever posted.
You make up whatever excuses you can to avoid meeting your burden of proof.

You know you are spouting pure BS so you avoid having to prove it at all costs.

After all that was why these claims of these past astronomers were brought up, so you could try shifting the burden of proof.

You just make up new excuses after the other ones failed to work, thatís what you always do.
There you go projecting again.

youíd just claim they look different, because of it being caused by atmospheric effect.
There you go admitting you know that the atmosphere is distorting the view.

which you again make up as if itís true or fact, but is just more bs you say like itís a fact, that everyone already knows is true, which is yet another lie you made up and use again and again.
You are the one continually making up crap and pretending it is a fact.
I have been appealing to reality, reality which you hate.

When you make up a magical super-duper effect that doesnít exist
I don't.
I appeal to a quite common effect, which quite clearly exists, as clearly shown by videos of heat hazes, and the video of the moon.

No doubt, when they first said that all the stars appear to be Ďtwinklingí, but they donít twinkle themselves, it is all caused by an effect of our atmosphere, and everyone believed their claim, or most of us didnít care about it, and itís been accepted as if it were proven fact ever since then.
Yes, because it has been proven beyond any doubt.
Most people know how the atmosphere distorts the view to objects, and how the smaller an object is the easier it is for the atmosphere to cause issues.

When we later saw that all stars looked and moved, and were different from the other stars, to some degree, we knew for sure it could not be due to any actual effect of the atmosphere.
No, as you have never seen that.
You just appeal to crap, which has already been refuted.

Along with the fact that almost every effect of atmosphere occurs near the surface of Earth
No, it doesn't.
Tell that to pilots.
Go look up and see clouds well above you.
Even in planes you can still see clouds well above you.

There is absolutely no basis for your delusional claim that the effects of the atmosphere occur near the surface.

The sole reason you think that is reporting bias.
You live near the surface and look at objects near the surface, so you falsely conclude that must be all there is.

But regardless, the light from the star/Saturn still needs to go through the atmosphere, including the atmosphere near the surface.

All of that proved the atmospheric effect didnít even exist like they claimed it did.
No, not in the slightest.
You haven't even come close to proving that.

For there to be an effect of atmosphere in the first place,  it must happen IN the atmosphere, which means the air above Earth.
So do you have videos taken in space, so the atmosphere is not in the path of the light?
If so, provide them here.
If not, you are yet again looking for excuses.

Saturn does NOT need to be in the atmosphere in order for an effect of the atmosphere to distort the view for someone in that atmosphere.

Just like stained glass can change the apparent colour of an object seen through the glass, without the object needing to be in the glass.

Thatís why mirages, heat hazes, fog, etc. always occur near the surface of Earth, but not at high altitudes above Earth.
Prove it.

But they still claim itís due to our atmosphere
Because that is what all the evidence shows.
You have NOTHING to refute it.
Your attempt with the moon just demonstrated that you are a liar with no concern for the truth at all.

Eventually, no excuses will work anymore. Itís not working already
Your excuses already aren't working. Yet here you are, desperately making more.

Flat Earth General / Re: extreme weather forecast
« on: December 02, 2023, 12:59:21 PM »
If you're talking about being housed near a factory, there are plenty of places to move away from factories.
So if someone burns something near you, which is known to release a variety of toxins, you just have to move.
But if someone dares to roll out 5G, which has not been shown to have any negative side effects in controlled studies, you demand they stop.
Quite the little hypocrite you are.

Burning carbon is burning carbon.
Plastic isn't just carbon.
There are a variety of compounds.
And not all plastics are the same.
PP and PE are just long hydrocarbons, and as long as they burn completely there are no issues.
But PVC has a chlorine atom for every 2 carbon atoms.
This produces noxious fumes quite easily.
And if you don't have complete combustion, which is quite easy for plastic, you have all sorts of carbon containing compounds, including carcinogenic PAHs.

Do homeowners have any rights at all when it comes to 5G? No, they cannot move away from it when buildings him it according to code, short of being entirely off the grid. Unless their body adapts to it, they are basically suffering from palpitations and other ill effects
Yet no one can demonstrating any ill effects.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: They've lied to the world about the stars
« on: December 01, 2023, 11:22:07 PM »
Because their claims about Saturn over 400 years ago using a scrapped piece of junk are your idea of a better telescope than what we have today, which are not scrapped as junk, I need to buy what you think would prove your claim is true?
No, YOU need to get something which is the same or better than what they had.
Something being newer does not magically make it better.

We have been over this.
YOU made the claim that they are liars, so the burden is on YOU.

The burden is not on me, no matter how many times you lie to claim it is.
I am not the one who claimed they were liars.
I am not the one who brought up their claims and claimed they were telling the truth.

It is YOU who believes they are liars, so it is YOU that needs to show that they are, using equipment and conditions as good or better.

That is YOUR problem, not mine.

Why donít YOU buy this telescope?  Why are you asking me to buy it? Thatís crazy, you donít ask others to buy what YOU want!
Again, do you not notice your hypocrisy?
You continually boldly proclaim that someone else should have done something, and the fact that you can't find it (or haven't even attempted to) means it is BS. Yet here you are, demanding other people buy something to prove your claim.

Grow up.

Either provide evidence they were lying, or admit your claims are BS.

Why do we need a force to pull us down when we are up in air?
Because we need forces to make things move.

our mass and density are greater than air
Which has no directionality and provides no reason to move in any direction.

You have had your origin BS refuted countless times. No need for you to bring it up yet again.
Things DO NOT magically go back to their origin.

You donít have any reason for why we should not fall through air
You don't have any reason for why we should.
If you want to claim it should just move without reason, then why down?
You don't have any reason for why we should not fall sideways, or upwards.
Even if you attempt to appeal to your BS origin (which you are yet to prove in any way), you can lift something up and to the right, why shouldn't it fall down and to the left?

It is quite simple why, because there is no reason for it to move that way. Instead, what is making it move is gravity.

Why would we need an external mechanism to pull us down from air, when our mass makes us fall through it to the surface once again?
Because our mass can't magically make us fall. We need a force to do that.

What do you think would happen to us if this pulling down force didnít exist as you believe?
We would not be pulled down to the surface. Quite simple.

So why would air suspend us within it?
Why should air force us down?

A helium balloon rises up in air
Due to the pressure gradient in air, something you wish to ignore.
This pressure gradient should push everything UP.
But as that pressure gradient relies upon gravity, it wouldn't exist if you magically removed that downwards pulling force.

What you say is another force called Ďbuoyancyí
No, I clearly explain how this is a direct result of gravity, and state that it is commonly referred to as buoyancy.
I also explain how this applies an upwards force to EVERYTHING in the fluid, including making objects appear to weigh less when immersed in a fluid.
I also explain how this pressure gradient is observable and measurable, and you just ignore that.
I also explain how this also works with acceleration, giving the example of a helium filled balloon in an accelerating car.

But because reality doesn't fit with your fantasy, you just dismiss it as a made up force.

You have to make up two forces when none are needed at all.
No, I use 1 force, when 1 force is needed, and explain how this force results in what is observed.
Buoyancy is not a magical additional force. It is the direct result of gravity.
You don't like that, especially because you cannot show any fault. So you just ignore it all and repeat the same pathetic lies.

All the evidence points to a force trying to make things go down.
You have nothing to show otherwise, and no explanation for why being more dense than the air should make things go down.

itís a complete mess!
Your BS certainly is.
No explanation for why mass should magically make things move, and why it should go down.
Nothing to explain the observed and measurable pressure gradient.
Nothing to explain why objects defy this pressure gradient to go down.
Nothing to explain why things should accelerate at a particular rate.
Nothing to explain why this rate varies.

All you have is a baseless assertion to cling to to pretend Earth is flat, and blatant lies to pretend the mainstream model is wrong.

How does perspective make a surface appear to be rising when it should look the same height everywhere you look?
It shouldn't.
Perspective is nothing more than a statement that your vision works with angles.
There is no distortion or magical limitation.
It is simply what is the angle to the object.

This is it:

The further away the ground is, the higher up it appears.
This continues FOREVER, at an ever decreasing rate.

The only way to make it go down, is if Earth curves.

Now, it starts going up, but eventually you reach the point where your line of sight is tangent.
Now if you go further around the curve, you go down.

Perspective distorts and limits our view outward, causes us to see the surface rising up and causes the horizons at the end point.
The "end point" for perspective is infinite distance.

Why do we see further out on the same floor, when we are standing up, then we can see if we lie down on that same surface, which is flat?
If the floor is flat, we don't.

You say that if we were on a flat surface, weíd be able to see everywhere over the Earth,  and thereíd be no horizons at all!
Because that is what all the available evidence shows, and because you are yet to explain what magic causes the horizon.

Because to claim that surfaces appear to rise less and less with more distance, is just ridiculous, proven to be, in fact.
Do you mean for a flat surface? Because that is what all the evidence shows.
That initially the rise is very dramatic, but with increasing distance the rise from a bit of distance gets less and less, slowly approaching 0.
Just like above.

What is ridiculous is claiming that it magically stops and reverses.

But great job contradicting yourself again. Here you are claiming it rises the same, but then directly below claiming it magically stops.

The highest we see the surface, and the highest we see objects on the surface, is at the horizon, the vanishing point of our view, over a flat surface.
The horizon is NOT the vanishing point.
The horizon is a finite distance away, the vanishing point is infinitely far away.

It never rises less and less with more distance away, everyone knows it rises more and more in the distance, you know it too, so stop the bs act!
You know perspective can't magically stop and reverse and make the ground appear to go down to make objects appear to sink into a flat surface and hide the bottom.
So you stop the BS act.

Because yes, everyone knows that perspective would mean the flat surface continues to rise in the distance, FOREVER.

Still fleeing from your lies about planes I see.
I shall just take that as an admission of defeat and that you fully accept you were blatantly lying to everyone and that you know planes do not need to magically descend to stay level over a round Earth, and that if you ever bring it up again, I can just quote this, as your admission of defeat and show that you are lying yet again.

So please tell me that perspective doesnít magically make the surface and objects on the surface appear to rise, because itís absolute fact, yes?
Why? I never said that.
I said perspective doesn't magically hide the bottom of objects.

Over a flat surface, perspective will make things below your eye level appear higher, with the angle of dip decreasing with increasing distance, but NEVER going above eye level.
Likewise, it will make things above your eye level appear lower, but again, NEVER going below eye level.

This means if there is some distant object, with nothing in front of it (just the ground/sea), then it will NEVER be hidden as there is nothing to obstruct the view.

This is clearly Ďmagicí, yet it happens in reality, the real world.
No, that is not magic. That is how perspective works.
The MAGIC is having an object above eye level magically appear below eye level, as no amount of perspective can ever do that.

And there is no need for magic when you accept Earth is round.

Youíre completely wrong to claim that perspective makes things look less and less higher with more distance, it makes things look more and more higher with more distance.
Look at a ship going outward from you on the ocean, from close in, to a half mile out, to a mile out, and two miles out, and see how high it looks at each point.
No, you are wrong.
It entirely depends on if the object is above or below you.
Perspective makes it shrink and get closer to the centre of your vision (shrinking the gap between the centre of your vision and it).
If you have a very tall ship, such that when standing close you need to look up to see the top, then as it goes into the distance the top appears to go down.

It seems more and more higher with more and more distance away, a sharper rise with more distance away from you.
No, that is a blatant lie.
It is a shallower rise with more distance.
Again, the angle of elevation is a fairly simple trig relationship.
With increasing d, a gets smaller (in magnitude, so if it is below you it gets larger).
At a small distance, a small change in distance results in a large change in angle. e.g. if you have something 1 m below you, and you move it from directly in front of your face to 1 m away, it goes from -90 degrees to -45 degrees.
But if you move it to 2 m away, it only goes to -26.6 degrees.
If you move it to 10 m, it goes to -5.7.
If you move it to 11 m it goes to -5.19.
If you move it to 100 m it goes to -0.572.
If you move it to 101 m it goes to -0.567.

As it gets further, the same change in distance results in a smaller change in angle.

This has been shown to you repeatedly.

The sharper rise will eventually end with a horizon
The point where the curvature starts winning.
The point that clearly shows that Earth is round.

If Earth was flat, this would NEVER happen.
If Earth was flat, the "horizon" would need to be the edge of Earth.

The vanishing point is infinitely far away.

You require pure magic, where perspective magically stops and reverses.

Remember what you said, perspective makes things (below you) appear higher.
Yet to form the horizon with perspective alone, you need perspective to magically stop.
To magically make it so the ground further out doesn't get higher.
To have things above the ground appear to sink, you need to go one step further and have perspective magically reverse, to have the ground which should be appearing to get higher instead appear to go down.

So what causes this magical reversal?

There is no explanation from perspective, but plenty from curvature.

The only way we can compare what both surfaces look like, is by having both surfaces, one flat, one curved as you claim it to be, and then we can compare them both, which would settle the debate right away, and prove which is true, flat or ball Earth.
And we do, with simple tables, were if we are above it we can see everything above the table, with nothing magically hiding it from view.
But with a ball, we see that initially perspective wins, with the ground appearing to rise, until it goes too far and appears to sink.
So debate settled, Earth is round?

The problem is you refuse all those observations, and instead want to only ever use observations where the curvature of Earth is enough to cause the bottom of objects to be obscured.
Something which requires the magical reversal of perspective to magically change when it magically occurs to perfectly match the RE.

But the problem is, you think everything is curved, without ever seeing or measuring a curve
No. I accept Earth is curved, from seeing this curve, this curve which has been measured countless times by so many people.
You just reject that curve, because you are desperate for Earth to be flat.

If itís so slight of a curve, it cannot be a sharp curve that makes objects vanish from sight from a 1/4 mile section of the surface, because it was always higher and higher up, to see it, with more distance away from us, while the surface was always flat, never curving at all, which would show objects less and less rising up with more distance away.
That is how objects WOULD look on a curved surface, with more distance away from us.
What are you trying to say there?
That over a flat surface, objects would rise less? If so, that is the complete opposite of what is expected.
But initially they are the same.

The math is really quite simple, as shown above.

A curved surface cannot look higher and higher with an ever sharper curve with more distance away from us, it would always sink down more and more.
Yes, it can.
As shown by the math above.

As I have asked you before, why should perspective magically stop working for a sphere?
All it takes to show your claim is pure BS is to look at a ball.
Go find a ball, put it on the ground, mark the top most point of it, then go stand up near it (so it is below you) and look down at it.
Even better if you can line yourself up directly above the top.
According to your delusional BS, you should see the point at the top, and no further. Everything beyond that should be magically hidden from sight. But that is clearly BS.

You can also do the same by standing on the top of a hill, or the top of a ramp.
If your dishonest, delusional BS was true, if you were standing at the top of a ramp, the ramp should be invisible, with no way for you to see it.
But it is trivial to see, showing your claim is pure BS.

Standing on a large ball, there will be a point where your eye is tangent to it. You can look down further, and see ground that is closer. Again, this trivially shows your claim is pure BS.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: They've lied to the world about the stars
« on: December 01, 2023, 10:22:20 PM »
Because they made these claims about Saturn over 400 years ago without any proof for them, thatís why I brought them up here!
Stop the dishonest BS.
Plenty of people verified the claims.

The reason you brought it up was to try to shift the burden of proof because you couldn't prove your insane claims.

I showed all the evidence
You showed a portion of the evidence, and that is entirely consistent with their claims.
You are yet to provide ANY evidence that shows their claims are wrong.

You try to ignore that entirely
I don't ignore it, I just recognise it is your fantasy with no connection to reality.

say I made the first claims here, which is nonsense.
HERE you did.
You brought up the claims, purely to try to shift the burden of proof.

And again, you didn't just question the claims. You called them liars.
That is a positive claim which requires proof.
All I need to do to reject that claim is show you haven't proven they are liars. I DO NOT need to prove their claims are true.

Again, this is like if they claimed to have saw a cat sitting outside their window, and had plenty of people verify that claim. But you come along and dismiss them all as liars and claim there is no way they could have seen a cat outside their window, and that cat's never sit but instead are always moving around wildly.
And the sole evidence you provide to try to prove your dishonest BS is a video of a cat through a heat haze.

I don't need to prove they saw a cat to say your claim that they are liars is unjustified.

ignore that they had no proof at all for their claims, nor ignore that all of the available evidence proves them wrong.
Again, stick to reality, not your fantasy.
You are yet to present ANY evidence that proves them wrong.
You continually REFUSE to do so, instead demanding others prove YOU wrong.

I donít even NEED to show any evidence
You boldly proclaimed they are liars.
You boldly proclaimed that they lied about their observations of Saturn.
To justify that claim of yours YOU NEED EVIDENCE!
And that evidence needs to show that they lied.

You are yet to come close to providing that.

Ignoring that it is about their bs claims is utterly ridiculous, and shows how desperate you are to defend a fairy tale story they told you.
Projection much?
You are the one who came here with a fairy tale.
You provide crap as evidence to pretend your fairy tale was true.
When that was shown to not support your fairy tale, you decided to bring up these people and proclaim they are liars.

So the one trying to pretend it isn't their claims, IS YOU!
You are the one desperate to shift the burden of proof, so you can pretend your fantasy is true.

I have to prove their claims are made up
You have to prove they are lies, or retract your claim that they are.

Again, I do not need to prove that they are true, to show your claim that they are liars is unjustified.

We know that their claims arenít valid, have no evidence or proof at all, and are completely contradicted by all the actual evidence we have today!
No, we don't.
That is your baseless fantasy.
You are yet to present any evidence that contradicts their claims, and the only way you say there is no evidence or proof is by dismissing all those who verified their claims as liars.

My conclusion is based on all of that
Your conclusion is based upon nothing more than your desperate clinging to your fantasy.

I said they lied to the world about stars
Yes, and then continually refuse to justify that claim of yours.

which means their claims about what they saw of the stars to the world have no proof at all, while all the proof shows they made it all up, or lied about it all to us.
It is that last part which is important, your CLAIM that all the proof shows they made it all up, i.e. that they lied to us about it.
That is what you need to prove, and what you continually refuse to prove.

This is my conclusion based on all the evidence we have
Yet it is not supported by any of the evidence you have presented.

You canít point to some imaginary evidence you think is there, with an imaginary telescope you have never even SEEN through before, and claim that I must buy 3 or 4 of them, keep one of them for myself, give away the others to anyone on the street, make sure I and they take videos of Saturn with them, put them on YouTube, and see what they all show Saturn like, because youíre a nut cake
Yet that is basically what you demand from others all the time.
Notice your hypocrisy?
Why are you unwilling to do what you demand of others?

Just compare that to this garbage of yours:
They timed Saturns rotation over 400 years ago, but didnít try it again, with ever better telescopes, over the next 400 years, until NASA finally gave it another go, from Ďspaceí, and proved how accurate they were 400 years ago!!

Nobody else tried to time its rotation for the next 400 years, because NASA mentioned how close they were 400 years ago to what they found it to be!

Unbelievable crap, yet again!
If you are unwilling to put in the effort and cost to buy telescopes to do such a thing, why should anyone else?

But more importantly, is that claim of yours actually true, or is it based upon nothing more than your wilful ignorance?
Have you bothered checking if people haven't done that, or do you just assert it?

Again, I have explained the kind of evidence you need to show they were lying.
Using inferior telescopes doesn't show they were lying. Using worse seeing conditions doesn't show they were lying.
You need to use the same or better, for both.

Or alternatively, you need to make a comparable observation of an object with a comparable angular size through a comparable amount of atmosphere. e.g. a 1 m wide object through 10 km of sea level atmosphere.

But you wont, because you know it will prove you wrong.

Just like you flee from your lies being exposed, such as videos showing the moon being distorted, something you claim shouldn't happen, something you claim shows it is motion.

I've dodged nothing.
You have repeatedly.
Even now you refuse to address the issue.
The observations of the direction to the sun are entirely inconsistent with a FE.

Instead of even trying to defend the FE by explaining how this could work on a FE, you just lie to everyone by boldly proclaiming Earth is flat, so it must be how it works.

Since the earth is flat, and we see what we see, it seems to work quite well.
Since this observations are fundamentally incompatible with the FE, and we observe these observations, the FE doesn't work and Earth clearly isn't flat.

Just asserting Earth is flat demonstrates you don't give a damn about the truth.
Boldly lying to everyone by saying Earth is flat, to pretend it must work, doesn't explain how it could possibly work on a FE.
It doesn't address the issue at all.
It is just pathetic dodging.

When Satan introduced the lie
You have your Bible the wrong way around.
One of the first things God did to man was lie to them, then Satan (actually the serpent) told them the truth.
God is the compulsive liar of the Bible, not Satan.

But all this religious BS is just more pathetic dodging.

You are right, there is nothing magical about it.
And without that magic, the FE doesn't work.

You are the biggest liar on the flat earth, and you will continue to be the biggest liar on the flat earth.
Falsely accusing me of being a liar doesn't magically negate your lies.
We still see your lies here, with you still refusing to explain how this work on a FE.

No scale provided, as Stash loves to do.
Except in the gif.
So there you go lying again.

Common where?
Lots of places, including here.
For example, the wiki:
The sun is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

I don't need to draw anything, especially for the likes of some lowlife gaslighting jackass like you.
If you want to address the issue, rather than continually dodging, you do.
You need to explain how this works on your fantasy Earth.

But of course, if you do that, it means you have a drawing which can be shown to be wrong.
You would much rather dishonestly refuse to provide that and instead cling to vague BS to pretend your fantasy works and just continually move the goalposts.

The sun, as placed on a rotating celestial sphere high above, disappears from the view of people once the day has concluded.
Again, notice how you just assert pure BS with no explanation.

It really is quite simple, if the sun is above a FE, then it is visible to everyone on that FE (unless something like a mountain blocks the way or they are in a building or underground, etc).
In order for it to set, it needs to go below that Earth, which would make it set for everyone.
We know the sun is always visible for some location.
So if Earth is flat, the sun must always be above Earth, so you need something to block the view to make it set.

Again, care to address the issues instead of continually dodging and just baselessly asserting Earth is flat? (I know the answer is no, as you can't address the issue and have no interest in admitting the truth, that Earth isn't flat.)

You have only proven the depth of your inadequacy.
More the inadequacy of the FE.
As you continue to do with your repeated dodging of the issues.

Except you left out the sun is located on the celestial sphere above our heads and want to represent the sun circling at a consistent height.
You mean as many FEers pretend the sun is?

Just where do you think the sun is?

The celestial sphere is a quite old concept which works for a tiny FE, not the entire world.
This is a sphere, effectively infinitely far away, such that everyone sees it at the same angle.
With the modernisation of the understanding of the world (from thousands of years ago when people realised it was round) you need to correct that position based upon your latitude and longitude due to Earth's surface not being flat, i.e. the sun is the same direction for everyone, but the reference they are using (the surface of Earth) is not.

We don't all just magically have our own magical celestial spheres to magically make your fantasy Earth work identically to a round Earth.

I already stated the way things look is precisely because the earth is flat.
Yes, you blatantly lied to everyone, with absolutely no justification of your lie.
Is that your point? That the only way you can pretend Earth is flat is by blatantly lying to everyone by boldly proclaiming that whatever we observe is consistent with a FE?

Again, how about you try to explain the problem that has been raised, instead of repeating the same pathetic lie?

Data's stupid gif is not to scale.
Firstly, it was Stash's gif, not Data's.
Secondly, as you have already been asked, WHAT IS NOT TO SCALE?
If you want to claim it is not to scale, you need to explain just what part is not to scale.

He presented it and he can state exactly what parameters were set in place to assemble it.
You mean like already in the gif?
A sun 32 miles wide and 3000 miles high?
Because that is the common FE claim.

Like I wrote earlier the sun is within the celestial sphere above the flat earth plane. There is no cardinal north on the flat earth plane. There is a magnetic pole on the surface of the earth. The other pole is located above us on the celestial sphere.
So why don't you draw a little sketch of your fantasy Earth and show how the sun is moving?

Or how about you explain the observations above which show the problems for the FE?

This thread in a nutshell:

Data posts a depiction of a scene not to scale.

Jack and Smoke cosign.

Make no mistake...there is no way any of these three are capable of presenting any visual rendering of an environment they vehemently deny exists.

The earth is flat and that is why it looks like it looks.
Now try it honestly:
Data posts a massive problem for the FE. The FACT that the observed path of the sun is nothing like what it should be based upon the common FE model.
This FACT is that this common FE model has the sun circle the north pole, so it appear to circle the north pole all the time, or as data puts it "turn to the north".

Bumble objects, by dishonestly switching to a projection of the RE which does not apply to the FE model to pretend the sun should go in a straight line and not turn to the north.
Data objected, and provided a gif demonstrating the problem. (Your later claim about it can be brought up later).
I expanded on it, providing the examples of the southern summer and the equinox, clearly marking a difference between the turning to the north expected of the FE, and reality where this does not happen. I also called out the dishonesty of using a projection of the RE rather than an alleged FE map to pretend it doesn't turn.

Bumble then dishonestly deflected away from the issue, refusing to address the actual problems raised.

I again responded, pointing out why the FE fails, and why they didn't address anything; with them responding with more dishonest deflection.
And so on, until you come in.
And what is your contribution? More dishonest deflection.
Do you attempt to address the issue of the path of the sun? No. Instead you just assert that the gif (which is supplementary to the argument and not needed for it at all) is not to scale.
But you are yet to explain in what way it is not to scale.
Do you think the sun is too small or too big? Do you think it goes too far away or not far enough?
Or is it just that it doesn't match reality because Earth isn't flat.
And when called out on that, you just throw out insults and continue with the deflection, refusing to explain just how a FE could ever match reality.

Or if you want a shorter summary:
Someone posts a massive problem for the FE, which FEers cannot explain and which clearly demonstrates the common FE model is wrong.
FEers dishonestly attempt to deflect away from this problem, because they know it kills their fantasy.
REers call them out on this and further expand on the problem, showing just how broken the FE fantasy is.

So I'll ask again:
Can you post anything to address the topic to try to save the FE?

Some key things for you to explain for the FE:
On the equinox, the sun is observed to rise due east and set due west, for everyone who isn't at the extreme north or south.
For an observer on the equator, it is observe to rise due east, pass directly overhead, and set due west.
For the common FE model, it should rise NORTH of east and set NORTH of west.

During the southern summer, the sun is observed to rise SOUTH of east and set SOUTH of west. This includes passing to the north of people south of the sub-solar point (e.g. those south of the tropics.
For those people south of the equator, it should certainly appear to rise NORTH of east, and set NORTH of west. And this will continue a considerable way up into the northern hemisphere.

And then the only time it does seem to work (superficially, ignoring the fact that FE can't explain why it appears to rise and set) is it rises north of east and sets south of west.

If you can't address these massive problems for the FE, then don't just lie and claim Earth is flat. As a flat Earth is fundamentally incompatible with what is observed.

Fixed that for you Jack.
No, you didn't.
On what basis do you claim it is not too scale?
Is it because it doesn't match reality? Because guess what, a FE does not match reality.

Even if it isn't perfectly too scale, that objection in no way deals with the argument.
Especially not the argument of this thread.

Again, the FACT is that for the common FE fantasy with the sun circling above a FE, at an altitude of 5000 km; where for example on the equinox it moves around a circle with a radius of 10 000 km.
That means for someone on the equator, when the sun is directly overhead it is 5000 km away.
Then at the time of sun set, it is above a point roughly 14 000 km away, making it a total of 15 000 km away. That means it is roughly 3 times the distance, and should appear much smaller and much dimmer. And it should have an angle of elevation of 19.5 degrees
At midnight it would be above a point 20 000 km away, making it a total distance of 20600 km away, and an angle of elevation of 14 degrees.

Importantly for this topic, it would also appear to have turned to the north. Instead of rising due east, passing overhead and setting due west as it is observed to in reality, it should rise north of east, pass overhead and set north of west.

FE does not match reality.

I have always understood that facts =/= rational discourse in your view, so there is that.
Because you don't understand what facts are.
Facts are a key part of rational discourse, but FEers don't like them, because it shows Earth isn't flat.

So I'll ask again, can you post anything to address the topic to try to save the FE?

Or do you realise FE is DOA and there is no hope to save it honestly so you need to deflect?

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« on: November 30, 2023, 01:44:35 PM »
Cybertruck release day!

The Tesla people look very depressed.  They over promised by quite a bit.
Why would that make them depressed? Isn't that Tesla's MO? Over promise, underdeliver, very late.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« on: November 30, 2023, 12:12:47 PM »
I greatly respect Elon Musk for moving forward with a revenue free model of Twitter in a powerful way.  I've said since the beginning that the only way to guarantee a free speech platform is to ban all advertising and run it as a non profit.
It seems more that he wants to control it, and make money from it, not give everyone free speech.
We saw that with the recent events around Turkey, where he was happy to just silence people in Turkey.

He also either wants money or control, given the API changes including a massive increase in price, and the twitter blue paid subscription, and trying to have paid accounts for all new users.

Are you in the regular habit of posting gifs depicting animation that is not to scale in order to demonstrate your stupidity, or do you sometimes just come right out and overtly write the words indicating such?

Asking for a friend.
You mean asking for yourself, because of all the stupid things you say, like that right there?

You cannot come up with a rational objection so you just proclaim that it isn't too scale.

With the way the FE sun is meant to move, you would expect something at least quite close to that.
The distance to it would vary dramatically throughout the day, so the apparent size and brightness would change dramatically.
And there is no way for it to get hidden from view.

Can you post anything to address the topic to try to save the FE? Or just throw out cheap insults?

Mercator doesn't form an opinion, one way or the other.
It really is quite simple:
If Earth is flat, then there is one flat representation of it, with a particular layout of the continents, etc.

If Earth is round (like a sphere), then any flat representation of it will naturally cause something to distort, so there are many representation of it.

So If you think Earth is flat, you pick one map, and stick to it.
You might have different styles, e.g. one using satellite data to colour the map, one just using lines, one showing topography and so on, but the layout of the contents remains the same.

Switching back and forth between different projections of a globe to try to argue about how something should appear on a FE is dishonest BS.

This is shown by asking a simple question (or any countless similar questions) of what should be the direction to the sun for an observer on the equator at sunrise, on the equinox?
You also don't need this specific detail, and instead can just ask in what direction is a straight line from a point at 0 degrees longitude, 0 degrees latitude, to 90 degrees east, 0 degrees latitude?

Here is the common FE BS with the North pole at the centre:

Here it is for the other projection you used:

Notice how in one case it is east, and in the other it is north east.

These are NOT compatible.
So it DOES matter which one you use.

Especially when the topic of the discussion is what way the sun should appear to move.

I happily switch between models, because I truly does not matter. You're the one calling all this a lie.
You happily switch because you don't care about the truth.
As shown above, IT DOES MATTER.
Yes, I'm the one pointing out that it is dishonest BS from you.
You are using a projection which you do not believe shows the position of the continents correctly to blatantly lie about a hypothetical FE.

If you were honest, you would stick to the NP centred map, or whatever you believe correctly shows the locations of the continents.

Oh honestly. The fact that I use this map is inconvenient to you.
No, it isn't inconvenient to me. It is blatant dishonesty on your part.

even though I just gave a reason.
And I explained why your reason makes no sense.
It is just dishonest BS to pretend the issue raised magically doesn't apply to your fantasy.

The reason is that when you convert flat space across to overhead circles, it can either be turn into expanding concentric circles (a flat disc) or circles that expand up to the equator then contract towards two poles (a sphere) or equal lengths (a cube). Mercator has no opinion at all, it simply creates the latitude and longitude and leaves it at that.
What are you trying to talk about here?
If you convert a flat space, like a hypothetical flat Earth, into a representation on a flat surface (like the map above) without distortion, you get 1 map, and ONLY 1 map.

There are only 2 ways for you to honestly use the Mercator projection; you either claim that it shows the actual layout of the continents, or you accept that it massively distorts the layout of the continents and thus also also distorts directions. The latter makes it useless for this discussion.

So you're basically showing that the sun casts light on multiple latitudes, and you think I'm supposed to be impressed.
Can you be honest for once in your life?
I am showing what is expected for your fantasy.
The sun, on the equinox should rise north of east and set north of west.
For that particular point in time, the sun should be observed at those angles.

Instead of your fantasy, in reality we see the sun rise due east and set due west. At that point in time, they see it due east and due west.

I am demonstrating how your model fails to match reality.
How the sun should appear north of where it does appear.

Congratulations, you just described the long sun paradox.
You have no paradox, just dishonest BS where you need to blatantly lie about how vision works.

The sun, being far away, can be seen by roughly half of Earth at a time, as nothing is blocking the view to it for that half, and Earth is blocking the view from the other half.
This does not need a magical long sun, nor does it need a magical holographic dome.

which should slant tides so that one side of Earth has no water for half the year
No, it shouldn't. That is just more dishonest BS from you where you want to magically pretend there is a magical universal down, or where you want to pretend Earth is a tiny ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.

Now again, care to address the issue?

Again, the simple one to consider is the equinox.
For the equinox, with your BS model, the sun should rise north of east and set north of west. Instead it is observed to rise due east and set due west.
For someone on the equator, it is observed to rise due east, pass overhead, and set due west.

If you don't want to discuss that, then discuss the southern summer for a place directly on the tropic of Capricorn, like Rockhampton. For your BS the sun should rise north of east, pass directly overhead and set north of west.
Instead, it is observed to rise south of east, pass directly overhead and set south of west.

Your model predicts it should turn to the north to set north of west after passing directly overhead. But in reality, it doesn't. For the equinox for the observer on the equator it only appears to turn down. For the observer in Rockhampton during the southern summer, it appears to turn south.

All of this makes perfect sense for a RE, and shows the FE model is pure BS.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: They've lied to the world about the stars
« on: November 26, 2023, 12:33:13 AM »
You seem to think of yourself as our great authority on what is or is not evidence, when you have absolutely none at all, which is completely absurd.
No I don't. Conversely, you do pretend that. You dismiss anything you don't like as not evidence, dismissing so much as lies.
While you provide videos which don't support you.
Where your lies are exposed you dismiss it as carefully cut.

So as Iíve told you many times already, it is up to you
Again, as I have explained many times, YOU made the claim that they are lying, so the burden is on YOU to prove it.
Likewise, YOU made the claim Saturn moves in such a crazy way, so the burden is on YOU to prove it.

The burden is not on me to buy a telescope to prove you wrong.
That is not how the burden of proof works.

Lies are proven by leaving no other possible conclusion.
And you have still left open the conclusion that they were telling the truth, and the videos you are using are taken with inferior optics and/or inferior conditions.
You have not proven that they couldn't have seen what they have claimed.
So you have failed to prove it.

But their claims are the ones which need proof to start with
NO, they don't.
That is because YOU brought them up to try to shift the burden of proof. YOU brought them up so you could label them as lies and try to demand others prove they are true.
So no, here it is your claims that need proof to start with. YOUR claims that they are liars. YOUR claims that Saturn moves in such a crazy way.

Iíve shown all the evidence to prove beyond a doubt, that they made it all up.
No, you haven't.
What you have shown beyond any doubt is that you have no regards for the truth, that you are happy to blatantly lie to everyone and use whatever dishonest BS you can to prop up your fantasy.
Again, the videos you appeal to as evidence show different amounts of distortion, showing it is NOT the motion of Saturn, at least not for all.
They leave a massive doubt to your claim that they are liars.

Claims such as these, are very important and significant, and they most certainly SHOULD have been well proven, validated as any other claim is, of such significance and to all of their subsequent studies, and fully confirmed as true by many others independently.
And they have been.
You just dismiss those "many others" as liars.

So when I looked at all these videos of Saturn, from the past few years
And saw it blurry, out of focus and distorted by the atmosphere, appearing different in each video, you decided to repeatedly lie about it.
Again, you are yet to show anything that shows Saturn is in the kind of motion you claim.

Why didnít NASA or our current astronomers see Saturn through their much better telescopes and time its rotation again and again, to see how accurate they timed it 400 years ago?
How do you know they didn't?
Again, you are appealing to your wilful ignorance.

Now again, care to be honest for once in your existence and admit you were blatantly lying about the moon?
Willing to admit that plenty of footage show shows the moon different between 2 consecutive frames and not merely the result of the camera moving, i.e. the kind of view you claim shows it is "moving", directly contradicting your claim and demonstrating that such distortion does NOT show Saturn is in motion?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: They've lied to the world about the stars
« on: November 25, 2023, 11:00:10 PM »
Again, if you wish to assert that the moon will magically appear motionless, and thus the distortion visible in footage of Saturn means that Saturn is moving, then go and find a video of the moon with a comparable magnification to a video of Saturn showing the moon perfectly still so if you compare 2 frames all you will see is a shift of the entire moon as one (preferably with the same instrument for both).

Unlike the videos I have provided where different parts of the moon appear to "move" differently due to the distortion.

If you can't do that, then grow up and admit you were lying to everyone and that the distorted view does not mean Saturn is moving.

As an alternative, as I have said to do several times now. Go get a 1 m wide object, with clear features on it (it can be a print out of a picture of the moon or Saturn or something else) and view it from a distance of 10 km showing it perfectly still.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: They've lied to the world about the stars
« on: November 25, 2023, 10:57:58 PM »
We know their flight paths, so weíd know where to see them flying above us along their paths.
So go watch them.

They donít let us see them fly over the ocean
Except the examples you have already been provided.

Yet we are safe from it all, only 5 miles away from it!!
You have had this refuted before. Again, why keep bringing up the same dishonest BS?
When it is on the launchpad, it is not dangerous for those relatively close, e.g. 10 km away.
That is because it doesn't have the altitude or speed required to make it so dangerous.

But once it launches and is in the air, debris can travel a lot further. Once it starts moving with a significant velocity, the debris can travel a lot further.
That makes the danger area down range and

Again, if you saw a plane lose its wings high up in the air, would you rather be directly below it, or some distance in front of it?
I know which one I think is safer.
Yet according to your delusional BS, even though it is moving forwards, it should be just as dangerous being in front, or below or behind.

Itís truly stupid to ever accept this bs excuse as valid
Which is why I reject your BS excuse as it is utter stupidity.

that isnít an excuse for us never seeing rockets fly up until theyíre a speck, before too high up to see anymore.
Notice how you jump between 2 entirely different issues as if they are the same?
The exclusion area for rocket launches is a separate issue to why rockets go into orbit instead of just going up to crash back down.

If you choose to defend their claims
Again, I do not choose to defend their claims. I choose to object to your BS.
You claim they are lying so the burden is on you to prove it.
You cannot appeal to your wilful ignorance to pretend they are lying.
I do not need to support their claims to object to you claiming they are lying.

Again, the only reason you brought up their claims was a pathetic attempt to shift the burden of proof because you couldn't your delusional BS.

Iíve shown all the available evidence that exists as we know it
You mean all the evidence you accept.
And it still doesn't prove that Saturn is in the motion you claim, nor that they were lying.

Again, instead it demonstrates that the view of Saturn is highly dependent upon what instrument you use and the conditions you view it in.
It demonstrates quite clearly that there is the atmosphere (or something) distorting the view and that it is NOT just the motion of Saturn.
And with that, the simplest and most likely explanation is that it is all something distorting the view and not the motion of Saturn.
So again, the evidence does not support your insane claims.
Repeatedly lying by claiming the evidence supports you will not help you.

These claims were made over 400 years ago, but you ask ME to get a telescope you say would show Saturn motionless, after your bunch has had over 400 years to get one already!!
Stop making the same lies.
And remember, "my side" has done far more, even sending probes to Saturn to see it up close.
And it is consistent with their reports, and not consistent with your delusional BS.

So no, I'm not the delusional one.
I'm not the one who needs to repeatedly lie and then flee from those lies when they are repeatedly exposed and then try to weasel their way out of it.

This link will show you Herschelís papers on Saturn, reports on seeing two dark spots on its atmosphere, and all the rest Iíve mentioned here.

So now you can look at the papers and claims yourself, like I have, and understand what Iím talking about here, right from the source itself.

If you donít understand what claims he made, you cannot know the subject of this discussion to talk about it like you DO know it
Except the claims I have already shown were lies by you, i.e. the claim that they timed the rotation to the second.

But why don't you directly link to those claims you claim are lies?

What youíve done is look for a camera moving along the moons surface
No, I haven't.
What I did was look for "zooming in on the moon"
When you take a camera, and zoom in on the moon quite a lot, you will have a distorted view.

which shows features closer up
Magnification is not closer.
A child can understand this. Stop repeating the same pathetic lies.

while not as clear as when less magnication is used
Yes, like I have explained repeatedly.
Atmospheric turbulence will have a greater impact the more you zoom in on an object.

so when it is less magnified in that same video, it is sharper and less distorted than when closer up[more zoomed in], where an effect of waviness comes in.
i.e. when they zoom in, the turbulence of the atmosphere starts distorting the view. Just like you would expect it to with Saturn, given the angular size of Saturn compared to the moon.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: They've lied to the world about the stars
« on: November 25, 2023, 10:47:25 PM »
your carefully cut snippet
This was NOT a carefully cut snippet.
This was me waiting for the video to be zoomed in to a comparable level to the videos of Saturn, and then looking at 2 frames.
You can see a similar thing with plenty of videos and plenty of times throughout the video.
e.g. at 20 seconds into the video, you can still see that distortion, it is just far less significant due to the far lesser zoom.
Once they zoom in a lot you can see it all throughout the video.
And you can see it in plenty of other videos.
e.g. this one:

or this one:
or this one:

or this one:

Once you zoom in far enough, the atmospheric turbulence becomes significant and distorts the view and you need much better optics (with a larger diameter lens) to avoid that.

which also proves what a weasel you are, to try this crap!
Quite the opposite.
You blatantly lied to everyone.
Now that that lie has been exposed repeatedly, you try to weasel out of it by using a much lower zoom level.

As for you saying I should ask those who made the claims about Saturn, you obviously know they died centuries ago
Yes, but it points out the ridiculousness of you trying demand someone else proves their claims when YOU baselessly claimed they are a liar.

It would be like you saying my ancestor was a liar because they claimed to see a cat outside their window and then demanding I prove you wrong because I object to you calling them a liar.

If you want to call them a liar, the burden is on you.
If you want to retract your baseless claim go ahead.

so why would you say I should ask them to prove their claims when you know itís impossible to do in the first place?
To point out the stupidity of focusing on their claims.
You want to call them a liar, so the burden is on you.

That you try to use that as an excuse for them, as if anyone who lies or has no proof for their claims, can say itís not my claim, itís their claims, so I donít need to show any proof for claims of others, yet is still trying to defend them
Again, the only way I am defending them is by objecting to your baseless claim that they are liars.
I am not saying that they told the truth. I am saying YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN THEY HAVE LIED!

It truly is quite simple. You don't get to just assert people were lying and demand other people prove they were telling the truth.
Those other people can object to your baseless accusation of lies.

thatís what all the evidence would indicate
So far all the evidence shows you are wrong, or cannot determine one way or another.
You have no evidence to support you.

That is exactly what YOUR doing here
No, that is NOTHING like what I am doing here.
I am not saying they made those claims (except for the very specific which I have already demonstrated you have lied about).
I am not saying those claims were true.
I am saying YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN THEY LIED and you have not proven that Saturn is in motion.

Again, if you want something more comparable. It is like someone claimed to see a cat outside their window, and you then bringing up that claim much later to boldly proclaim they are lying and that there is a massive conspiracy. But it wasn't just them that saw the cat. Plenty of people did, but you dismiss them all as liars. And now you want me to prove that there is a cat outside the window rather than you prove they lied.

That is not how the burden of proof works.

you are trying to defend their claims
No, I'm not.
That is what you are trying to turn it into.
I am objecting to your claims.

You claimed they lied, so the burden is on you to prove it.
Don't expect me to prove you wrong, and I don't need to defend their claims and think they are true to object to you claiming they lied.

like if the lawyer told the judge that he didnít utter death threats, so he doesnít need to show evidence of his client not saying it!
If someone goes to court for allegedly making death threats the burden is on the prosecution or the one bringing the claim to prove it.
You cannot just demand the other side proves they didn't, which is basically what you are doing.

You canít be so stupid to think you can defend their claims which have no evidence
Except the mountains of evidence you dismiss.

even though I HAVE proven they are, based on all our evidence.
No, you haven't.
Your best evidence gets to a point of you can't tell.

It starts with YOU being their Ďlawyerí, who wants to defend their claims as valid, as not being proven as lies.
No. It starts with YOU being the one bringing the claim that they are lies.
The burden is on YOU to prove they are lies.

You cannot dispute that their claims have no evidence
Yes, I can dispute that lie of yours.
There are mountains of evidence, you just dismiss it.
Anyone who provides such evidence you just throw into the conspiracy.
So why not say what you really mean?
Your standard of "evidence" is whatever BS supports you, while anything that shows you are wrong is dismissed.
So what you are really asking for is "evidence" that is consistent with your delusional fantasy.

No, all our valid evidence in videos taken by us, the public, independent from the others who shot videos of Saturn, are the only valid evidence here
You mean the only evidence you are willing to accept.

it can easily be confirmed by us
So go buy the telescope and confirm it.

the liars arenít proven true by more liars
Again, all you saying here is that anyone who agrees with them you will dismiss as liars.

Weíve never seen a rocket fly up until itís a tiny speck in the sky, and then goes up beyond our view!
Except the ones we have which you just ignore.
Again, most don't do that because most go to orbit, not just to space.

Youíd surely think that someone on Earth wouldíve seen that by now
You have made absolutely no attempt to, so why should anyone else?
How about next time New Shepard launches, you go watch it?
If you aren't willing to do that, why should anyone else? Why should that magically make a video?

For all these things you allege should exist, you don't seem to want to do any of it. So just why should it exist?

Again, footage from NASA isn't going to help as you will just dismiss that as a lie.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: They've lied to the world about the stars
« on: November 25, 2023, 10:34:50 PM »
I already HAVE all of the evidence to support my conclusion that their claims about seeing some sort of Ďatmosphereí wrapped around Saturn, but is nearly motionless, and appears to be motionless when seen, like the moon looks.
I notice you fail to coherently finish that sentence.
You do NOT have enough evidence to support your delusional BS.

All the evidence is consistent with Saturn having a rotational period of roughly 10 hours and their claims about what they saw being true.

You have nothing to support your claim that they lied, nor that Saturn moves in such a crazy way.

Oh, and your edited version of this video shows the moon the very same in the first 27 seconds of your video, as it begins to zoom further in, which proves my claim is true.
Quite the opposite.
It proves your claim is pure BS and what I have been saying the entire time is correct.
My "edited" version is nothing more than cycling between 2 adjacent frames, showing the motion quite clearly.

When you view it with only a little magnification, the turbulence is insignificant enough that you cannot tell.
But when you magnify more, those little distortion and noise is amplified until it reaches the point where it does become significant.
This is also why I kept a very important part in, which you have chosen to ignore yet again:
The angular size of the moon is roughly 30'. The angular size of Saturn varies from 15" to 20". So at best it is 90 times as small, at worst it is 120 times.
That makes it comparable in size to those craters above.

So that magnified view of the moon is more comparable to the observations of Saturn. And we do not see the moon perfectly still like you claim we should. Instead we see it distorting, due to atmospheric turbulence.

Other than a blurry view of the moon, when fully zoomed in, due to the camera being moved over the surface, and less clear at full zoom, which explains why it only became blurry from that point, not before that point.
No, it doesn't.
Yet again, you are spouting delusional BS.
These 2 different frames are NOT a result of moving the camera or relative motion between the moon and surface. If it was, the entire moon would move as once.
Instead, this is evidence of the atmosphere being turbulent and distorting the view, with different parts of the moon "appearing to move" in different directions.

Again, when we zoom in, it makes the atmospheric turbulence more significant. So when you view an object with the angular size of the moon, even a small amount of turbulence will be significant.

Youíll also notice that the whole thing looks blurry, not just one part of the moon, like one or two of the craters, and there is no independent features of the moon that appear to be in motion, while the rest looks motionless.
So just like Saturn.

Why didnít you show the entire clip, and take time to cut the clip to a tiny part you think helps your argument?
I provided a link to the entire clip.
You ignored it.
I provided the gif to show clearly your claim is pure BS.
The moon does NOT appear identical in 2 consecutive frames.

But when you top it all off by calling me a liar
Yes, I call you a liar. Because that is what you are.
You blatantly lied to everyone.
When called out on your lie you continually ignored it.

when you give me a tiny snippet from a much longer video of the moon, which youíve cut out because it shows youíre wrong
NO, it doesn't.
Not in the slightest.
It entirely backs up my position and demonstrates that you are a compulsive liar that doesn't give a damn about the truth.

and of course you donít mention that youíve cut out a tiny part from a much longer video, nor did you even post the source to!!
And another pathetic lie.

I first posted the video here:
Not true. We both agree that the moon is slowly moving across the sky above us, but when we look at it, the moon appears to be motionless.
No, it appears to be moving very slowly.

And when you get a zoomed in view like this:

Showing distortion, just like your videos of Saturn.

Notice at this point, I just provided the video and pointed out it shows you are lying.

But you entirely ignored it and instead chose to repeat the same pathetic lie.
So next time, I provided 2 frames to show it change:
So when you look at a video of the moon, for example, each frame of the video looks the same, because the moon appears motionless over each frame of a video.
Except the video's already provided to you.
If you are going to lie, don't make it so obvious.

Again, if you want to compare it to the moon, you need to remember the moon has a much larger angular size, and appears much brighter.
That means it will be much less affected by atmospheric turbulence and limitations of optics (when considering a view that shows it all).
This also includes sensor noise from the low light.

The angular size of the moon is roughly 30'. The angular size of Saturn varies from 15" to 20". So at best it is 90 times as small, at worst it is 120 times.
That makes it comparable in size to those craters above.

But this BS of yours is like claiming the skin of the plane is actually moving like that.

Notice that even there I appealed to the video you were provided with which you chose to ignore.

Are you going to keep on lying, when it is really trivial to show you are lying?

Or will you finally grow up and grow a shred of integrity and admit you have been lying to everyone?

Not that it matters anyway, we see the moon in countless videos, which show it looks the same over the frames, accounting for camera movements, etc.
Find a video of the moon zoomed in to a comparable level to videos of Saturn (NOTE: this is a magnification factor, it is NOT having the moon appear roughly the same size as it does in videos of Saturn) showing the moon appearing stationary.
If you can't, stop repeating the same BS.

Unlike you, I show how the moon looks when the camera is still
You have provided NOTHING to support your claim.
You just lie to everyone by asserting the moon looks motionless.
Conversely, I provided a link to a video clearly demonstrating your claim is BS, which you just ignored.

Goodness. How many times must I explain this?

East and west appear clockwise or counterclockwise on a flat Earth.

I use Mercator projection because it correctly displays ice covering the entire south. This is identical to what you would see in an arctic rim model.

If you were to cut a Mercator into 36 long sections, it would loosely (with distortion) be able to be laid in a circle, as a flat Earth map. You'd have gaps problably, but by taping everything to a board, you can easily see that no such northeast motion occurs.

I did try it. With both maps. For every horizontal motion on a line (this time 30įN) on Mercator, the flat Earth map cicles the 30įN line. Northeast would involve the sun moving off this line. You have yet to explain why the hell it should do that! Unless I didn't read a post.

Looks like you've got a video/GIF that shows an absurd upward arc. I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. The sun is overhead, not in front of us. At all times. So, during this overhead arc, it swings in and out of the angle that is vanishing point, entering and exiting the horizon. Roundheads think that it must move around something or dip below something. Actually, you are looking at an object that is above you, yet appears below yow due to angle disparity.

Explaining using a simple picture.

Has the height to the roof of this house reduced? The height to the middle of the widow? The length of this house? Its width? No. Nothing except the angle changed.

The sun is above you at the same distance and the same height all day. But when it arcs out, you are not able to see it.
Skip the crap, you use a Mercator projection to blatantly lie.
You happily switch between models whenever it suits you to to try to prop up your failed BS.

There is no reason at all for you to use the Mercator projection for this discussion.
Your "reason" to show the ice is entirely irrelevant.
Especially given the NP centred one also shows that ice. So you have no honest reason to use it.
Instead, you use it to dishonestly pretend it doesn't have to curve.

Notice how you entirely ignore the actual issues?
This issue has nothing to do with why the sun rises or sets, which you still have no answer for and all the evidence shows Earth obstructs the view.
This is about the apparent direction to the sun.

There are several problems for your delusional nonsense.
Firstly, again, for the equinox, the sun is observed to rise due east, and set due west. And for an observer on the equator it passes overhead.
For an entire line of longitude, the sun appears due east, while 180 degrees away, it appears due west.
This is incompatible with your delusional BS.
This is what your FE fantasy needs:

The sun is shown in red above the equator. And then 90 degrees east and west, all see the sun north of due east/west. But again, in reality, they see it due east/west.

Your model fails.

Likewise, for the southern summer, people in Australia see the sun rise south of east, pass north of them at mid day and set south of west.
This again is impossible in your model.
It doesn't matter where you want to have the sun be when it appears to set for those in Australia, it shouldn't appear south. If your BS was true it would appear NORTH.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What is a woman?
« on: November 25, 2023, 02:49:18 PM »
Awesome.  The man who draws parallels between watching womenís sports and slave ownership complaining that my analogy isnít exactly the same thing.
The distinction is that you need it to be basically the exact same thing for your argument to work.

Where are you going with this dumb analogy anyway?
Demonstrating that people not talking about something doesn't mean they agree with you or the status quoe.

This little diversion was you complaining when I said you were telling people what they should watch
And me pointing out that wasn't what I was objecting to.
If you want to watch a sexist activity, go ahead, just don't pretend it isn't sexist.

I donít see how it can be both.
I'm of the opinion that if a bad activity exists, you should target those making that activity and publicising it.
Especially when doing otherwise would limit opportunities for people to engage.
Currently if people want to engage in sport or watch sport, they typically need to do so in a sexist manner, with few opportunities available for non-sexist options.

Yes, Jack I can honestly answer that- I wrote the bit you just quote mined out of context. You on the other hand tried to deny that you wrote the part about a bunch of girls running around in skirts to jerk off to.
Notice how you again twist the issue.
I didn't ask if you wrote it. I asked if I can pretend you think that, and if you want to extend it, that would be me claiming it came from your own fevered imagination, and it your own degrading sexist language.

Because THAT is what you are doing.
You are taking what I said as an example of a reason people watch women's sports, an actual reason they do, and pretending it is a representation of myself.
So would it be honeset for me to take those words of yours and pretend that is an honest representation of you?
That YOU think:
womenís sports is just shit and not worth paying any attention to.

Now, can you honestly answer that?

Why you think it is perfectly fine to do that to me, but when I do it to you you call it
another pathetic piece of quote mining again to make it look like I was saying something completely different.

Why is it fine for you to dishonestly misrepresent me, but when I do it it is magically dishonest, even when I was doing it in a manner to demonstrate your dishonesty.
(Note that I didn't actually say you think that, instead I asked if it would be honest for me to claim you did).

which just came out of nowhere but your own imagination.
Again, it comes from reality, where plenty of sexist pigs do that.
Sexist pigs that would be upset with the sport being ruined by men being there because they don't want to jerk off to them.
That is not my imagination.

Everything Iíve said about you is actually based on what you wrote.
And in the above example is a blatantly dishonest misrepresentation.
Or as you would say:
another pathetic piece of quote mining again to make it look like I was saying something completely different.

Does it really though?
Again, go ask female athletes if they think they are being sexualised while competing.
Why don't you start with these women who were fined for not wearing bikinis:

Or how about these women:

The sexualisation of female sport is quite well established.
I'm sure most elite female atheletes recognise this sexualisation, this attempt to turn them into sex objects rather than people.

Iím tempted to say try it, but please donít.  They almost certainly would not agree and would likely be massively offended.
Again, based upon what is already happening, they almost certainly would agree. Depending on how it is phrased, they could find solidarity and support, or be offended.
If you present it as you wanting to be one of those people jerking off to them, they would be offended, but if you do it in the broader context of the sexualisation of women's sport and the sexism inherent to it, they would likely agree and find solidarity.

ie It makes no sense in the system we have now.  The system they are competing in.
No, it makes no sense if they think that system is good.
If they think the system is bad, they can still recognise them as an athlete while opposing the system.

What a load of guff.  The only way it could possibly mean- you saying the words you used here.  No more, no less, and completely independent of how honest you think I am being.
By "no more" do you mean just me saying exactly that phrase as if I believe it? Or do you also mean including the fact that I was saying it about other people watching the sport and that it clearly isn't my opinion?

What reasons have I switched between exactly?  Iíve explained in painstaking detail why I think your crappy idea is not the same thing as divisions we have now.
Well as a simple one, your repeated switching back and forth between best athlete vs best in division/whatever to avoid the fact that your argument against what I am proposing works on the current system.
You have repeatedly failed to explain why the current system is fine but my proposal isn't. You thinking you have does not make it so.

If you want to find the best, you find the best. As soon as you start dividing you are no longer finding the best.

Guess what?  None of it had anything to do with jerking off, which remains the bullshit you invented about me.
Again, not invented. Taken from people actually doing that, and applying it to someone who's motivations are clearly sexist.

It's only sexist if you don't also jerk off to men running around in skirts!
What if they are sitting watching the Australian open and adjusting their legs?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 670