31

Flat Earth General / Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?

« on: December 06, 2024, 12:46:52 AM »

I’m not advocating that everyone must accept the flat Earth theory. In fact, I’m not even concerned with what others believe or don’t believe. What I’m trying to do is present my beliefs, along with the evidence and arguments that support them, and introduce myself authentically to others.

When it comes to themselves, people are very sensitive about tolerance and expect everyone to approach them with understanding. Jack Black is one of these people. Even though he’s a globalist, he feels entitled to spread his globalist ideas and fight against flat-earthers, while demanding tolerance for himself. The management has already shown him this tolerance to an excessive degree. But when it comes to us explaining the foundations of our flat Earth belief, he feels the need to attack every argument with zero tolerance. He even has an issue with my name being "Wise." If he could, he would probably argue with God about why He created me. Fortunately, since he doesn’t believe in God, that’s not a problem.

Again, there is a fundamental difference between tolerating people's opinions about subjective things, and tolerating people outright lying about the world. Especially when those people doing so use whatever dishonest tactics they can.

Again, freedom of thought and tolerance of other ideas goes both ways. That means while you are allowed to say your beliefs and present arguments you think support it; other people are allowed to object to that and say why they think it is wrong.

Why are you so against the idea of people objecting to your claims?
Why do you seem to want to silence them?

32

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

« on: December 05, 2024, 12:34:37 PM »

Actions have consequences.

Yes, and you repeatedly spouting the same refuted BS has the consequence of people calling you out on it.

for arriving to a conclusion on my own

Again, it is NOT because you reach a conclusion on your own.
It is because you make an assumption and then reject or ignore anything that goes against it, where you continue to ignore the problems raised about your "conclusions" and continue to lie about the RE and the FE.

After all, you've made it  quite clear that whether I show graphs, formulas, diagrams, or youtube videos, all of it is equally BS.

You mean diagrams that don't address the issue raised, or are quite literally pure BS where you just draw what you want with no explanation of what magic causes it, where simple questions are then asked of you and flee like the lying coward you are?

For example this BS of yours:

Where you magically have the light from the sun magically restricted to a tiny spot, and when that was pointed out and simple questions were asked like what is magically restricting the sun to only shine there, you just entirely ignored them and fled.

Or your useless diagrams, showing the sun appearing below the clouds, as if that addresses the issue of how it shines light upwards onto clouds from below when it is above them.
You seem to fail to understand the difference between angular position and physical position.

Or your BS where you try to "explain" how the sun can magically appear to sink without shrinking by providing a diagram where you just arbitrarily draw the sun at a lower angle but the same size.

Have you considered that it is because you just keep posting BS rather than addressing the issues raised?

As you said, actions have consequences.

If you don't want what you post to be called BS, then stop posting BS and fleeing from it and starting defending what you post.

My God exists.
How do I know this? Because I have actually seen him.

Just like little kids see their imaginary friends.

Countless people claim to have seen their contradictory gods.

]
I have seen him in the people I've met. Mostly hot girls.

So you haven't seen him. You have seen hot girls, and then projected your need for an imaginary friend onto them.

But again, God has nothing to do with the topic.

Yet again you flee from your inability to address the issues and instead cling to a safety blanket.

No requirement to look beyond the horizon.

i.e. the very thing you continue to avoid because it your shows your fantasy is wrong.

Again, you still refuse to address the actual situation that is being discussed.
You continue to flee like a lying coward.
You still provide no explanation for how your delusional BS would work to produce what is observed, the sun illuminating the clouds, from below.
You still provide no explanation for how this can't work on the RE like you claimed.
You still provide no explanation for how the sun manages to magically "angle" itself to appear lower.
You still provide no justification at all for how everything is wrong, rather than just accepting that your garbage model doesn't work.

Do you understand that the diagram you provided before was pure BS? Are you going to admit that? Or are you just going to ignore it and move on, pretending you weren't blatantly lying to everyone to pretend there was a problem with the RE when there wasn't?

33

Flat Earth General / Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?

« on: December 05, 2024, 12:22:16 AM »

I am a shit

Wow, telling everyone that you are shit. Quite bold of you.

First of all, I need to make this determination that only some of the quotes you made was the answer given to you.

On an open forum, where anyone can respond.

According to your logic, you are always the winner of all debates because you always write last.

No, if anything, I would be the winner of a debate because I can support my position with logical arguments and explain why the opposition is wrong.

Here, both I and other scientists have personal lives

You are not a scientist. Don't pretend.
You outright reject science.
You directly defy the scientific method.

When we argue with you, in the first few comments, both sides' arguments are roughly understood.

After that you just keep repeating the same BS while ignoring the refutation of it, and start throwing in insults and fabricating quotes.
Like trying to call someone a fascist for objecting to your BS.

If you responded to my arguments, I wouldn't need to repeat them.

When people see that you keep repeating these parrot-like invalid BS arguments

If they were invalid BS arguments, you would be able to refute them rather than just repeating what they were in response to.

This doesn't mean that you won the debate.

Your inability to refute the arguments made does.

The number of debates you’ve won against any scientist here so far

What scientists have I been debating against?

The number of arguments you've disproven so far: 0
The number of proofs you've made on any topic so far: 0

Lying to everyone wont help you.

If I don't do this, I will be spending time responding to your unimportant comments, and in doing so, I might miss more valuable questions from other people.

Then perhaps you should stop wasting your time repeating the same refuted BS and instead try responding to what I have said?
Perhaps you should also stop wasting your time entirely fabricating quotes to respond to, and stop wasting your time with insults?

You certainly seem to have lots of time to do nothing productive.

Now I am ignoring you because you will continue repeating the same things

Which you cannot refute and need to hide from.

34

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

« on: December 05, 2024, 12:15:39 AM »

But you guys appear to need models to wrap your head around ideas.
You lack the ability to visualize, and this is why idiots can tell you something at age six and you won't be able to test it.

I can visualise things which work, such as the RE model.
What I can't visualise is your fantasy working without magic.

Your explanations amount to nothing. They do not explain the issue at all.

Models are useful for demonstrating things. Either what should happen or what should not. And they give clear things to then ask further questions about.

e.g. I can easily visualise the sun being a ball in the sky moving over a flat plane appear smaller and lower as it does so.
I can easily visualise how that would shine on a cloud from above, getting closer and closer to the side (but never below) as it gets further away.
I can also easily visualise how if light was magic, and it magically went below the clouds and then bent back up it would strike the cloud from below.
I can also easily visualise how for a RE, the sun can directly illuminate the cloud from below.

That is why you were asked for models, to make a clear representation where the faults can be discussed or to actually explain things.

Also, where is it written that there are rules about what is and isn't acceptable data?

Who said anything about that?

The sun arcs around the sky, casting shadows identical enough to this flat circular space.

No, it doesn't.
It arcs up and down, casting shadows as if it was circling around in a plane at an angle to the surface.

If we were to instead use a moving area and a still, would the light hit the same points the same way?

Do you mean a moving area and a still light source?
Then it entirely depends on the motion.
If the motion is equivalent, then yes they do.
That is because what matters is the relative position.

e.g. if you had the sun circling above, tracing a perfect circle about an axis at a smooth constant rate; and then decided to switch it so the sun was stationary, and Earth instead was rotating about that axis in the opposite direction; you get the same shadows.

Meanwhile, you imagine a world that cannot in fact be seen by your own eyes but instead you need (doctored) pictures to show you. You are literally talking about something that is a unicorn.

No, we are talking about reality. A world you can see by opening your eyes.

You can't show me have gravity sticks water to a ball.

You have been told what you need for that, and provided alternative means to see gravity.

You can't show me how water curves.

Sure we can, such as by long distance viewing where objects appear to have sunk into the water with the bottom obscured.

You can't show me where the Earth curves on the all too apparently flat Earth.

Yes we can. It's called the horizon.

You can't show the 8 in/mile curve

This requires accurate measurements. The simplest way to do it is to measure the angle of dip to the horizon with varying elevation.

I can actually time a feather vs an anvil and they do not in fact fall at the same rate.

In air, or a vacuum?

You cannot show me where it is "obvious" that the Earth goes around the sun and not the other way around.

Because simple visual observations can't tell.

I do not believe in unicorns.

Instead you just believe in something even more ridiculous.

I do not try to use math to extrapolate anything beyond my field of vision.

i.e. you choose to remain wilfully ignorant about so many things.

There are no dinosaurs because evolution doesn't work this way, and because reptiles are not relatives of birds.

Notice how that is circular?
You dismiss evolution because reptiles are not related to birds, but you say they are not related because you dismiss evolution.

they must not only fly through a vacuum but they need to bypass whatever membrane separates air from a vacuum (were there no such barrier, air would diffuse).

i.e. you choose to remain wilfully ignorant of the pressure gradient observed in all fluids, which clearly demonstrates that with the appropriate situation, no membrane is needed.

And I don't believe in climate change because I have only seen destructive effects of deforestation.

i.e. you don't believe in it because you remain wilfully ignorant of the past.

That of constructing models from what I see and understand.

i.e. you have no interest in understanding anything.
You have no interest in trying to make a model of something you don't understand to try to understand it.
Instead you will just dismiss it with whatever BS you can think of.

Why should I accept any of your "data"?

To be a rational human being?

You've already done me the dishonor of refusing to accept any of my data.

What data?
I'm yet to see you present anything that would come remotely close to data.

I can readily see a straight horizon in all directions. That's a flat circle. Like in the art model.

Notice the key part - a flat circle.
Compare this to a ball and a table.
For a ball, we also see a flat circle as the horizon.
For a table, we see the edge of the table, so unless it is a circular table, it doesn't produce a circular horizon.

So if you try to actually understand, you would see this observation clearly demonstrates Earth is round.

If you can't accept what your own eyes tell you, there's no hope of convincing you.

I do accept what my own eyes tell me, and that includes things like me seeing the horizon resulting in my eyes telling me that Earth is round.

This includes my eyes seeing light being cast upwards onto clouds from below telling me the sun is BELOW the clouds, not above. While not directly telling me Earth is round, it at least consistent with a RE and tells me the common FE model with the sun circling overhead is wrong.
This includes the moon (much easier than the sun because you don't have issues with glare from how bright the sun is), being seen to remain the same size while its elevation changes, telling me that it is circling and going below. Again, consistent with the RE model and telling me the RE model is wrong.

So I do trust my eyes. Perhaps you should try it some time.
Stop trying to come up with BS to explain it away, see the sun going down and accept that it is (relative to you).

35

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

« on: December 04, 2024, 11:50:47 PM »

Either you're a liar, or you're at least wrong.

Have you considered that you could be wrong?
Especially given how often you are?

What happens when you criminalize burning of fossil fuels (or at least discourage it)? Well, they still mine them.

And there are key differences.
One big one is the amount.
Another is that it isn't being burnt to increase the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

and this also means making far more plastic.

So they just make it for shits and giggles?

36

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

« on: December 04, 2024, 12:49:29 PM »

It's canonically a light in the sky. A ball of fire would have mass. The sun has no mass.

So you are going for pure magic?

Thinking of it as a ball of plasma will completely doom you to misunderstanding. As will the idea that this circle is 100% indicative of how things work. Models are guides, not reality. But when I say that the sun/moon is a hot or cold light, that is actually what I mean. Not an object casting light, not light from a distant star. It's a prop in a stage. A spotlight.

You mean it will "doom" us to understanding the FE model doesn't work?
Maybe you can take that crappy model and use it to show how the sun can illuminate a cloud from below? i.e. the issue you continue to flee from?

Again, you still refuse to address the actual situation that is being discussed.
You continue to flee like a lying coward.
You still provide no explanation for how your delusional BS would work to produce what is observed, the sun illuminating the clouds, from below.
You still provide no explanation for how this can't work on the RE like you claimed.
You still provide no explanation for how the sun manages to magically "angle" itself to appear lower.
You still provide no justification at all for how everything is wrong, rather than just accepting that your garbage model doesn't work.

Do you understand that the diagram you provided before was pure BS? Are you going to admit that? Or are you just going to ignore it and move on, pretending you weren't blatantly lying to everyone to pretend there was a problem with the RE when there wasn't?

37

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

« on: December 04, 2024, 12:46:53 PM »

He rightly understands that attacking people because their life is supposedly a failure is a sure sign that you are looking around for someone whose life sucks worse than yours. He does however mention him in this video. "He's not really a professor. Cool story, though, bro." I also like when he says Dave is "uniquely well qualified in the subject" of sucking.

And then proceeds to attack people. Great example.

See this is why having honest discussion with round Earthers never gets anywhere. This is what's called "moving the goalposts."

So honest discussions with round Earthers never get anywhere because FEers move the goalposts.

Quite understandable given they cannot address the issue being raised, so the deflect to something they find simpler.

Just what do you think you explained?

There a few quite key attributes to seasons.
The most common key parts is how summer is hot and has more than 12 hours of daylight while winter is cold and has less than 12 hours; and the further away you go from the equator, the more that difference from 12. i.e. the further away from the equator the more extreme the seasons.

So those attributes you flee from are key to explaining seasons.
If you don't address them you are not explaining seasons.
Instead you providing vague handwavy BS which explains NOTHING.

You not caring about it doesn't mean you have explained seasons.

So can you explain seasons? NO!

Perspective can't make something sink without making it shrink.

Uhhh, yeah? It can?

No, it can't, because the 2 are intrinsically tied together.
The simplest way to understand perspective is that everything gets scaled down.
This causes the object to appear to shrink, but it also causes the distance between the object and level to appear to shrink making it appear to sink.

This can even be shown geometrically, with either the equations or a simple diagram, which has already been provided to you.

If you want to say no, you need more than just your assertion.

But viewing the same plane fly across the sky as you face straight ahead, rather than staring at it, it will appear to rise and fall instead of growing and shrinking.

So you mean as it flies roughly perpendicular to the line from it to you? Where it is changing angle, NOT based upon perspective but based upon changing position?

Even then, because it isn't flying perfectly perpendicular, it still grows and shrinks, just less.

Do you have any pictures or videos to support your claim?

More importantly, how does this help you at all, given the sun sets when in your model you are basically looking at it as it moves away rather than it going overhead.

You've been asking it over and over again. "Why can't this work?" It's beginning to feel less like an honest question, and more like a cry of frustration.

In the other thread, for a different issue.
Here instead you were asked to explain how it works for a FE model, and instead you deflect to lying about the RE model to pretend the RE model can't.

On the obverse side of where the three lights hit, each time, there is a light of the opposite color.

Which is from the 2 other lights.
Again, you get the exact same result without that obstruction just by turning off the light.
This is NOT a magical colour inversion.
Try it with just a single red light, it doesn't work.

As I explained before, you don't see the cyan because the shadow magically inverts the red light. You see the cyan because the blue and green lights are still shining into the shadow of the red light.

Again, you are setting up a complete strawman, lying to everyone, to pretend the RE can't work, with such trivial BS it isn't funny.

So I'll ask you again, in the RE model, what are these 3 lights meant to be?
Clearly describe each of them.
See if you can honestly answer that direct question.
Or see if you can actually be honest for once in your life and admit your argument was pure BS based upon a wilful misrepresentation of the RE model.

Your eclipse should have all kinds of light distortions on the hemisphere opposite the eclipse (there are two lights, not one; the sun and the other one eclipsing it)

No, that would be YOUR model.
YOU are the one claiming the moon is magically its own light.
In reality, the moon is NOT a light.
Instead, it merely reflects the light of the sun (unless you want to try looking at it in the IR region).

So that would be what we would expect in YOUR BS.

But even then, it still doesn't match. Instead of having 3 lights off at angles, you have 2 lights, in line with each other.

but there are not. In other words...

you are spouting pure BS, setting up pathetic strawmen to pretend the RE model doesn't work, because you cannot explain how it works in the FE model, and can't show any actual fault with the RE model.

And if the sky is red at sunset, in the opposite hemisphere, it should be green.

Repeating the same BS wont help you.
Again, WHERE ARE THE BLUE AND GREEN LIGHTS?

NO WHERE!

Instead, what you have is the sun appear red because the blue light gets scattered away.

You also don't even bother looking at what your actual picture shows, and instead appeal to a crappy colour which doesn't match.
Do you understand the difference between additive and subtractive colour mixing?

You are a known conman.

Really?
Because there have already been plenty of times where I have demonstrated your prophet is lying, yet you can't show a single instance from me.
Regardless, the point remains. Your lying conman saying something is worthless.

Yes. Because I have never seen the sort of color inversion described by the three lights, I can safely conclude that I instead seeing light hit a flat plane.

And if you were capable of reasoning, you would instead recognise that this means we are not illuminated by three different coloured lights.

But thanks for once again showing you either are incapable of reasoning, or just choose not to reason.

This BS does NOTHING to show it can't happen on a RE.
And I find it quite hard to believe that you could actually be stupid enough to believe the BS you are saying could actually represent a RE.

Again, WHAT ARE THE THREE LIGHTS?
Can you honestly answer that? If not, can honestly admit your argument is pure BS that does nothing to show any fault with the RE?
If not, you are just lying to everyone, and you demonstrate you are knowingly and wilfully lying.

But of course, your reasons that Earth is a sphere are perfectly thought out, and leave no doubt in the minds of others.

No. There will always be people like you that will reject reality and have doubts.
But the RE model is vastly more fleshed out than your nonsense, and is actually capable of explaining things, including the exact location of the shadows during the eclipse and the path it takes; and things like seasons with the different length in daylight hours; as well as things like the expected location of the sun in the sky from the model and simple geometry.

38

Flat Earth General / Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?

« on: December 04, 2024, 12:06:28 PM »

You should look at the work done by me, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop and John Davis on this subject.

And importantly, don't just do it in isolation.
Look at it in the debate section, where you can see it refuted repeatedly, with you (and them) then abandoning it because you (and they) can't defend it.

Then look at how even after it is refuted, with clear explanations of why it doesn't support your claims, see that it is still posted elsewhere again.

I am the most fascist ever.

You haven't proven anything objectively.

I see the fascist is talking to itself, and even admitting it is a fascist.

And yes, YOU Haven't proven anything objectively.

Conversely, I have.
Plenty.

Remember the double slit experiment.

Which shows the wave nature of particles.
That does NOTHING to indicate it isn't real.

I also explained visual examples of this. If you look at the train track from the opposite side and look to the right out of the corner of your eye, both the opposite side of the train track and the right side are flat. But if you turn to the right and look across from the corner of your eye, you will see both sides expanding.

What?
Try explaining that again, with pictures.
Because if I look at a train track, it doesn't magically expand.

All this shows that worldly life is an illusion. You haven't been able to provide a single piece of objective evidence yet.

Sure I did, which you then systematically denied.

Because in this world it is not possible to prove anything or disprove anything. By not accepting this

Prove it.
Until you do, why would I accept it?

We each have different realities, you have to start by accepting that.

No, I don't.
I can accept that you hate reality and try to escape from it into your delusional fantasy with so much paranoid BS. But that fantasy is not reality.

The ordinary reader sees how we, as flat earthers, deal with problematic people. This is enough to understand why we stay away from general discussions.

Yes, "problematic people", i.e. those who show you are spouting BS or ask questions you can't answer.
You insult them or ignore them, because you believe a lie that you cannot defend.

You stay away from "general discussions" because you can't discuss it. You can only preach to those not smart enough to see through your lies.

This is a scientific way of working that also deserves mutual respect.

What you are doing is not scientific at all, and I would say not worthy of any respect.
Look at your map garbage.
You started with the baseless that Earth is flat, and then rejected any result which didn't fit. Even jumping to insane ideas of airlines committing mass murder.
There is nothing scientific about that.

You started with your conclusion and only accepted that which fit. Science at best starts with an idea to test and if that fails, they recognise that.

If you were doing it scientifically your map would show Earth is not flat.

But you don't care about science. You care about preaching.

39

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

« on: December 04, 2024, 01:06:08 AM »

Turkeys are just wandering about, like ticking time bombs, waiting for their fat to devastate the environment.

No, they're not. As it requires you to collect a large amount of turkey, isolate the fat, and then dump it.
And this is entirely PHSYICAL, because life can easily break it down.

Compare that to oil, where not only does it have the physical problem, it is also a chemical problem, because life can't break it down.

Notice how I said the fat when taken care of properly can be added to compost?
You can't do that with oil.

Neither of these things are clearly things that can be handled properly. They both need to be banned completely.

No, Turkey fat is trivial to handle properly, but people like you don't give a damn.
And importantly, the alternatives to Turkey are quite comparable.

That is NOT the case for oil.

I'm pointing out just how silly your argument sounds.

No, you are setting up a stupid strawman.

But flying completely off the handle and demanding zero carbon be burned

Is a strawman which you continue to cling to.

And that is all you are doing.
You aren't trying to engage in any form of rational discussion.

Fine, I'll render turkey fat, pour it into a container, and configure a car or ten to burn turkey fat. What's that? Turkey fat is suddenly dangerous?

Go ahead. Just don't expect to be able to power the world with it.

Meanwhile, if I am worried about the amount of trees chopped down to "save the environment" you tell me that I'm pro-oil, because that's an easy strawman.

No, if you continually defend fossil fuels, as you have been doing, and making ridiculous demands for alternatives to be perfect rather than merely better, then you are pro-oil.
Especially with your utter hypocrisy, where if you think a mine is used for renewables you label it as horrible, but when pointed out it is for fracking you suddenly become silent.

They cannot be recycled. Not easily, anyway.

That comes down to what is meant by "easily".
This is more an issue with the disposable economy and want the cheaper option.

If so, then explain this.

An image from an article on solar panel recycling?
https://mkscrapmetalsolution.com.au/solar-panel-recycling-service/

40

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

« on: December 04, 2024, 12:26:02 AM »

1. Seasons: the sun moves in a circle overhead from the Tropic of Cancer to Capricon and back.  When the sun is above the equator (northern summer/southern winter), it moves slowly being long hot days in the northern hemisphere. When the sun is below the equator, it speeds up (southern summer/northern winter). The wider the circle, the faster it goes. This tracks. You can repeat this with an ordinary pendulum. Or a swing ride.

This only addressed a tiny part of seasons.
It doesn't address things like daylight hours, or even temperature with how hot the southern summer can get.

2. Set/Rise: Perspective behaves like a dome of angles. Like so.

Which requires an infinite distance and makes objects appear to shrink to nothing.
It does NOT magically make them set without even shrinking.

Perspective can't make something sink without making it shrink.

3. Eclipses: The sun and moon are lights in the sky. A greater and a lesser light (as described in Genesis). It is literally a matter of two lights interfering with each other. The one light acts as a mask for another, as they cross paths.
A solar eclipse is constructive interference (it's more dangerous to look at a solar eclipse than just sun), while a lunar eclipse is destructive interference (it is safe to look at a lunar eclipse).

Not an explanation at all.

So why can't a sphere work?

Not what was asked.
Notice how yet again instead of attempting an explanation for your FE fantasy you deflect to lying about the RE to pretend it can't work.

when colored lights are focused

So nothing like reality, with one massive light, rather than 3 separate coloured lights.

If you were able to reason, you would understand the difference.
Do you understand why you get that colour inversion?

If you had the 3 lights together, without any obstruction, you get "white" light, or at least light that appears white to the human eye.
If you then block out the red light, you get the combination of blue and green, which appears cyan.
If you instead block out the blue light, you get the combination of red and green, which appears yellow.
And if you instead block out the green light, you get the combination of blue and red, which appears magenta.

This isn't some magical inversion.
It is simply a combination of 2 colours, because the third is blocked.
You can get the same result by removing the sphere and turning off one of the lights.

If you only had the red light, then you have scene which appears red, and the shadow is dark. It doesn't magically produce a cyan shadow.
Likewise, if you only had the blue light, you have a blue scene with a normal dark shadow.
And a green light alone produces a green scene with a normal dark shadow.

So in this pathetic delusional strawman of yours, what colour is the sun meant to be, and where are the other lights?

Because otherwise this does NOTHING to support your claim that it can't happen on a RE.

This means that if the sun glows red like so

That is not the sun glowing red.
That is the light being scattered by the atmosphere, with blue being scattered more, making the sky appear blue, and the sun and sky around the sun at sunrise and sunset appear red.

Oh, and btw. Eric Dubay mentioning

Eric Dubay is a known conman. He says lots of BS.
Telling us that he has said something is entirely worthless.

In the end, I cannot tell you what causes an eclipse, but I can tell you loads about what doesn't cause it!

Yet you are so confident that it can happen on a flat Earth but not a round Earth.

Lemme guess. "No, I haven't seen an ideal FE model."

It isn't a matter of an ideal FE model.
It is a matter of a FE model which can explain things observed in reality better than the RE model; and that simply hasn't been produced yet.
Instead we have FEers giving vague handwavy "explanations" which really explain nothing and just superficially appear to explain for those who don't bother thinking; who usually then flee from any challenge to it, as you have done repeatedly.

41

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

« on: December 04, 2024, 12:20:53 AM »

Yes, he reads nonfiction. In fact, he has read books on the Round Earth.

Yet he acts like someone who has absolutely no idea but pretends to have an idea.
So either he knows so little it isn't funny, or he is intentionally lying to everyone.

So either libraries don't always work, or they have produced a conman.

I can do my own reasoning:

Yet you really seem to suck at it.
Just look at the stupidity you suggested not to long ago.
An experiment that requires you to measure an angle of 0.00000045 degrees.

So you either completely suck at reasoning, being incapable of doing it; you choose not to do it; or your did it and decided to misrepresent it to everyone. Which is it?

2. Flat Earth theory has nothing to do with job prospects, unless you want to talk about it full time, like Eric Dubay.

But it does link to your ability to think critically.
If a job wants someone who is just a sheep that will do what they are told, I'm sure a FEer would be fine.
If a job wants someone who will adhere to regulations rather than getting them sued, then a FEer would likely not be suitable.
If a job wants someone who is capable of thinking critically, then a FEer likely would not be suitable.

4. Flat Earth is not a matter of being too dumb to understand that the Earth is round. This is something students are taught in the early years of school.

No, it is much more than that. It is being too dumb, while thinking you are smarter or otherwise better than so many people.
That you have managed to figure out what has "confounded" so many people; or that you have managed to break free of that "brainwashing".

So if you tried to move either of these two models, would it break apart?

If you try to move a car or a train or plane, do they break apart?

I don't actually care about your models.

Of course you don't. You just care about pretending that the RE is wrong or your fantasy is right.

Models are not good teaching tools.

They are the for the vast majority of people.
But that requires that they understand the purpose of the model, which you clearly don't.

You must therefore give a full three-dimensional Milky Way suspended in midair while the sun moves about and carries with it all the planets.

No, we don't.

But I'll give you this 2D model anyway.

So you demand we give you a fully functioning 3D model, while you give a crappy drawing which explains nothing?

But in The Dream And The Lie of Louis Pasteur

Which you happily accept because it matches your preconceived ideas.

I do not know where the flat Earth around me ends. I am not even certain that it does. I can only see where my horizon ends, and I am not fool enough to pretend that I can measure the distance. For you see, the horizon moves as I move, and there is no tape measure that will address that problem.

And that should be a big sign that it isn't flat, as not flat surface acts like that.

42

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

« on: December 04, 2024, 12:02:56 AM »

This is finally a good question. After alot of bad questions.

You have a very strange idea of what makes a "good question".
Why not be honest? It is finally a question you think you can answer; rather than one which trivially shows you are wrong, which you can't answer at all and you need to deflect from at all costs.
And you happily latch onto it to run off to another issue to avoid the issue you cannot address.

Again, you still refuse to address the actual situation that is being discussed.
You continue to flee like a lying coward.
You still provide no explanation for how your delusional BS would work to produce what is observed, the sun illuminating the clouds, from below.
You still provide no explanation for how this can't work on the RE like you claimed.
You still provide no explanation for how the sun manages to magically "angle" itself to appear lower.
You still provide no justification at all for how everything is wrong, rather than just accepting that your garbage model doesn't work.

Do you understand that the diagram you provided before was pure BS? Are you going to admit that? Or are you just going to ignore it and move on, pretending you weren't blatantly lying to everyone to pretend there was a problem with the RE when there wasn't?

43

Flat Earth General / Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?

« on: December 03, 2024, 11:59:41 PM »

What you need to understand is that you call objectively wrong is objective to you

No, it isn't.
It is objective, meaning not based upon anyone.
You might subjectively reject it, but that does not change the objective nature of it.

You are objectively wrong, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.

In reality, there is no such thing as objectively wrong or right. Everything in the world is subjective and relative.
When you say something is wrong, it is wrong just for you.

In reality (actual reality, not your delusional fantasy) there is plenty that is objectively right or wrong. Not everything is subjective.
When I say something is objectively wrong, that means either that thing is objectively wrong, or I am objectively wrong for saying it.
You refusing to accept that doesn't change that.
Your wilful rejection of reality does not make those parts of reality subjective.

The solution is to admit that you are a fascist and fight against it. I don't have any expertise in solving people's personality problems, I would help you if I did.

Why would I admit such utter BS?

As a reminder, the one acting most like a fascist here is YOU!
You are the one who seems to want to silence anyone who objects to your BS, as if they don't have the right to object, all while complaining about your right to freedom of thought and expression.

Apart from this, what I can say is that the sphere model has already been refuted sufficiently and we have thousands of publications on this subject. Is there any need to republish these and watch the same chorus of denial call these studies BS over and over again?

How about some honesty?
How about admitting you haven't refuted it, and that these publications you appeal to have been refuted?
How about dealing with those refutations with more than dismissal?

44

Flat Earth General / Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?

« on: December 03, 2024, 11:54:49 PM »

It would be good if Jack Black could agree to disagree with you, shake your hand, and not fight against you tooth and nail, but a leopard cannot change it's spots and a zebra cannot change it's stripes.

Agreeing to disagree is an implication that both sides have merit. Why would I agree to disagree when that isn't the case?

45

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shape of Our Earth

« on: December 03, 2024, 11:50:53 PM »

Actually its easier to believe that things do not naturally travel in straight lines, considering that this is what occurs with all other trajectories and phenomena.

It is much easier to believe that in the absence of an external influence, things travel in straight lines, as there is no preferred directionality.
Having a preferred directionality is special.
And that means it should have a reason for that directionality.

When we see curved or bent paths, there is a reason behind it.
For example, when light refracts, this is because it passes from a substance with one refractive index into another.
That can be a sudden kink in the path for an abrupt change, or a smooth curve from a gradient.

46

Flat Earth General / Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?

« on: December 03, 2024, 01:08:46 PM »

The point here is that must you accept that I don't have to be right in your opinion.

What you need to understand is that this isn't merely about OPINION.
You made factual statements that were wrong.
That is not merely being wrong in my opinion. That is you being objectively wrong.

If you don't want your BS challenged, don't say it.
I am under no obligation to allow you to spout BS without challenging it.

It's your thoughts that are BS.

Yet I'm the one who can defend my thoughts, while you can't.

Because if you think it's not BS, they're not BS on your part, because that's your opinion.

Again, it is not merely opinion.

what should happen is philosophical fascism like you do. No, I won't do that.

Again, what I do is not fascism.
But you do things far similar to that all the time, where you simply dismiss anything that doesn't fit your fantasy as fake, and just continually assert the same refuted nonsense.

And you seem to be advocating for something far more akin to fascism where you should be free to say as you please with no one permitted to object.

Not only are you objecting to some BS. You're objecting to someone by describing his thoughts as BS who does not think like you and just expressing his opinion. This is what we call as fascism.

No. I'm not.
Again, YOU ARE NOT MERELY EXPRESSING OPINION!

You are making objective statements about reality which are wrong.

Not only are you saying that it is wrong for me to claim that the earth is flat, you are also against my free speech that the earth is flat. This is exactly what we call freedom of thought and expression, and you are against it.

Where have I said you are not allowed to say Earth is flat?
Instead, what I have said that if you say Earth is flat, I am free to object to that BS; that you don't get to just say Earth is flat without any repercussions.

You appear to stop that freedom of thought and expression and make it so you have it but no one else does; to have it so you can say whatever you want, regardless of how incorrect it is, but no one is permitted to object.
That would be far more akin to fascism than me objecting to your BS.
That would be akin to the religious persecution of old (and current in some places) where anyone who speaks out against the religion is deemed a heretic and killed or otherwise punished.
That is NOT free speech. That is NOT freedom of thought and expression.
It is the lack of it.

Free speech works both ways.
And if you want free speech, freedom of thought and expression, you need to allow it both ways.
That means you get the freedom to say Earth is flat, and other people get the freedom to say the claim that Earth is flat is pure BS, and that anyone who says it is wrong.
That includes the freedom of thought and expression to think you are spouting pure BS and that you are wrong.

So if you want to prevent people objecting to your BS and prevent people saying you are wrong, then you do not want free speech, you do not want freedom of thought and expression.

47

Flat Earth General / Re: Vaccination History

« on: December 03, 2024, 12:13:55 PM »

[pathetic deflection because they can't handle they are wrong, full of loads and loads of BS to try to bait people into responding to that so you can flee from repeatedly being shown to be spouting pure BS and your delusional fantasy not working.]

And yet again, you continue to flee from the topic.

If you are so desperate to talk about COVID, why not do so in any of the countless threads on it.
Or at least have the tiny shred of integrity to admit you are doing because you cannot defend your delusional BS.

Again, you still refuse to address the actual situation that is being discussed.
You continue to flee like a lying coward.
You still provide no explanation for how your delusional BS would work to produce what is observed, the sun illuminating the clouds, from below.
You still provide no explanation for how this can't work on the RE like you claimed.
You still provide no explanation for how the sun manages to magically "angle" itself to appear lower.
You still provide no justification at all for how everything is wrong, rather than just accepting that your garbage model doesn't work.

Do you understand that the diagram you provided before was pure BS? Are you going to admit that? Or are you just going to ignore it and move on, pretending you weren't blatantly lying to everyone to pretend there was a problem with the RE when there wasn't?

48

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

« on: December 03, 2024, 12:10:55 PM »

On the contrary. Each year, turkey fat clogs drains,

Yes, a physical problem.
If instead that is taken care of properly, it isn't an issue.

That is not the fat itself being devastating to the environment.
If it was, all the turkeys already in the environment would be devestating to it.

In fact a volcanic eruption basically burns this pressurized underground fuel all at once.

No, volcanos have nothing to do with oil and coal and so on.

The only thing important to me is that we don't clear trees in the name of the environment.

So continuing to defend oil, which is causing massive environmental harm is perfectly fine.
But a better solution which does far less harm is a big no-no?
Likewise, rampant destruction of the environment by people who don't give a shit about it is also perfectly fine by you, even though it causes far more damage.

Again, you demonstrate you don't give a damn about the environment.

What this is really about: you clear trees for solar plants until America looks like Haiti.

And no one is suggesting that.
So you are saying it is really about a strawman where you entirely misrepresent the alternatives to fossil fuels to continue to pretend that they are horrible, while being happy with far more environmentally damaging things.

49

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

« on: December 03, 2024, 12:06:04 PM »

Eric Dubay spends his waking hours at the library. Now I dunno his degree level, but he's basically proved that libraries work.

Really? He seems to spend his waking hours doing whatever he can to hide from the truth.
If he is doing that at a library, he is proof that libraries are not a magical solution which will just magically make people smart and knowledgeable; given how often he is entirely wrong with his claims.

But the point you need to remember is that very few flat Earthers escaped the public education system.

And they are an example of the failure of that system.

All of them do hold degrees, even if only a bachelor's degree.

Pure nonsense.
And if they do, it clearly isn't in science.

Why am I so certain of this? Because it's like that famous graph showing religious people as stupid.

And yet FEers are more likely to be religious.
And FEism has that same religious mentality.

Sorry, I got off topic. The point is, dumb sheep tend to be at the lowest levels

i.e. the FEers.

So these to-scale models. You need to make one with the following features:

You failing to understand how models work doesn't mean we need to make it with those features.

The problem is that this model starts to fall apart because of very simple rules of what you call gravity.

Yet you can't explain why and instead just spout nonsense.

1. If it's based on a bunch of metal tracks to get the planets and moons to spiral, this will usually hold back the forward motion of the sun.

Why?
What magic holds back the sun?

2. If it's based on some sort of unbalanced weight

If you wanted it to move itself, you would likely have a powered model, one which uses batteries or plugs into mains power, or just a hand cranck to make it move.

3. Most importantly, there is too much attached, and something will snap off.

Which is why cars travelling down a highway, trains travelling down a track and planes flying through the air sponteously fall apart for no reason. Oh wait, they don't.

Especially given that the speed that the sun is supposed to go around the galaxy

Is quite irrelevant.
Have you seen what that scaled down speed is?
More important, do you yet understand that speed is not an issue?

The simple model of Earth rotating around the sun with other planets might be great in terms of how it works ...  But this model isn't accurate to the sun's motion around the galaxy.

And all it takes to complete it is to MOVE that simple model.

a flat solar system seems to work, while one based on vertical spirals in 3D will not

Only if you are a sheep that doesn't think about it.

Water is wet. It's also predominantly flat.

"predominately flat"?
Why not try saying that more honestly.
In the small scale experiments you run you cannot tell the difference.

Why not try a larger scale experiment, like looking at a distant object over a lake, where we observe the bottom hidden by the water, clearly showing it is curved?

If we're gonna do "experiments" that are basically just observations, go to the sink. Get a glass of water from the sink. Using a level, make certain you are not currently on slanted ground or in a houseboat. Then using a protractor or the level again, measure the "curve" of the water.

And how accurate and precise is that protractor?
You are using a glass.
A glass which is known to have issues with surface tension at the edge, which means you already lose a significant portion of the glass.
So lets say you end up with 5 cm that is usable.
For an Earth with a circumference of 40 000 km, that would equate to an angle of 0.00000045 degrees from start to end.
Where can I find such a magically accurate and precise protractor?

There should be no curve. 70% of Earth is water, and 100% of this water lays flat when there are no waves.

Then why does all the evidence that can tell one way or the other show otherwise?

You setting up an experiment where you cannot tell if it is flat or curved is entirely useless.

You may as well go tell us to get a basketball, then put on a blindfold so we can't see it, proclaim that we can't see the curve of the basketball, so that means it is flat.
That is basically what you are doing now.

The reason you don't believe is because you trust these models.

No, the reason I don't believe your BS is because I'm not a sheep. I can actually think about things rather than just accepting what the FE prophets tell me.
That means when I see such a crappy experiment I can think about what results are expected for each model, and then make a judgement on if it is possible to distinguish the results.
Unless you have a magical protractor that can accurately measure down to 0.00000045 degrees, your experiment is useless and cannot tell the difference.
Meanwhile, large scale experiments with the horizon and how the level water obscures objects from view clearly demonstrates water is curved, because at that point you would be able to tell the difference, and we see the results expected for curvature.

So I'm gonna assign you a model that you will fail to make

i.e. you have no interest in the truth and just want those who don't accept your baseless claims to fail.

50

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shape of Our Earth

« on: December 03, 2024, 11:46:22 AM »

This is actually a common misconception.

Yes, some ancient civilisations assumed Earth was flat. But the Ancient Greeks figured out it was round, still in BCE.

The modern FE movement, which shares almost no similarity to the ancient FE models, was revived long before the 21st century.
For example, the FE high prophet Samuel Rowbotham, also known as Parallax, started promoting it in the early 1800s.

The modern FE models typically don't have gravity (but some do). And I am yet to here a convincing explanation for why there is day and night on such a flat Earth. The best I get is handwavy vague nonsense.

51

Flat Earth General / Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?

« on: December 02, 2024, 11:20:32 PM »

You're the one straying from the topic. I answered the question by writing about the title and why we continue to defend the flat earth.

These are my opinions. It doesn't matter if it's wrong on your part or if it's actually wrong. These are my opinions.

You "answered" by stating things that are factually incorrect.
You didn't simply say that in your opinion the shape of Earth remains unclear, or that the shape of Earth remains unclear to you.
Instead you said the truth about the shape of Earth remains unclear.
That is not stating your opinion. That is making a factually incorrect statement about the world.

You are entitled to your opinions, but that does not mean you are free to make factual statements about the world that are incorrect and not have them challenged.
If you want to make an opinion, then make it clear that it just your opinion. e.g. say that you have no idea what the shape of Earth is. Don't speak for other people when you do so and don't present it as a fact.

Objecting to BS is not philosophical facism.

52

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

« on: December 02, 2024, 12:44:34 PM »

In the same way as cleaning a sink filled with cold chicken fat with soap and hot water helps deal with it, I suppose.

Once again demonstrating your true mentality.
You don't give a shit about the environment, you only care about that near you.
If you can push the problem somewhere else you are happy.
If you could live in luxury, completely destroying the entire rest of the world, you would be happy, as long as it doesn't effect you.
That is the kind of mentality that lead to the deforestation of Haiti.

Yes, there are degreasers

Or you use a grease trap.
With that grease then collected and recycled into compost or the like.

If oil were as bad as all that, shouldn't all fats and greases also be in a lesser list of environmental disasters?

No, for a very important distinction.
These fats and oils from things like birds that you are appealing to are structures currently found in life on Earth, which other life on Earth can easily break down and digest.
But life on Earth cannot easily break down the fossil fuel oil.
And the fats and oils from these birds haven't been underground collecting heavy metals like fossil fuel oil has.

You delude yourself into thinking only you care about the environment, and nobody else can have opinions.

No, we don't.
We recognise YOU don't care about the environment. As you have repeatedly shown.
Even saying you don't care about European trees.

But you have no solution at all for the Great Pacific Ocean Trash Thingy.

Notice how you continue to deflect?
The biggest problem with it is collecting it.
Some people like to think of it as a just a massive solid island. But it isn't.
It covers roughly 1.6 million square km, and as an upper bound has roughly 129 000 tons of plastic, or 129 million kg.
That is roughly 80.6 kg per square km, or 80 mg per square m.
That is virtually nothing and would take a lot of resources to collect it.

And even if you managed to collect it all, and it burnt just like oil does, just how long do you think it would last?
Well a single barrel is ~159 L of oil, which is well over 100 kg, or 0.1 tonnes, so being generous, at 10 barrels per ton, that would be 12.9 thousand barrels.
The US alone uses roughly 20 million barrels daily.
So if you cleaned up the entire great pacific garbage patch, you wouldn't even have enough to burn to last a day.

Depending on what you are using, it is almost certainly going to take more energy to go and collect that plastic than you get from burning it.
So if you try to collect it using ships which run on an oil based fuel, you will be burning more oil than you would collect plastic to use as fuel.

Your solution is clearly not thought out.
You have an idea which sounds like it would be wonderful, but is actually entirely impractical and not a solution at all.

The only thing this is a solution for is cleaning up the plastic.
It is NOT a solution for energy as it would take more energy to clean it up than you get from it.

You have two poor solutions for providing energy

No, there are many renewable options. And it is known that they only provide power at certain times.
And these options are vastly better than continuing to burn fossil fuels.
Even if you wanted to pretend there is no option for energy storage, it would still be better to use those renewable technologies when we can and only rely on the fossil fuels when the renewables aren't providing enough.

I noticed you said, "How does spraying with water help?" and not "No, you use cat litter/baking soda/clay/etc."

Because that doesn't help either.
That still isn't breaking down the oil.
It doesn't even remove it from a surface. Instead it just absorbs pools of it, and not very well.

But most importantly, it is because this shows your mentality.
You don't give a shit about the environment, because spraying it with water doesn't help it at all. Instead it just pushes the problem somewhere else where you don't need to think about it.

You don't have solutions, you just gripe at people who do something

And here you again show your hypocrisy.
You object to the idea of "doing something" in the form of renewable energy, because it is untested, etc.
Yet what you propose has been tested and shown to not work, yet you continue to suggest it.

And you want to focus on the symptoms, rather than the cause.

Burning would at least produce waste energy.

That really depends, given the energy required to do so.

And we already have barrels of oil. Just letting them sit there is a ticking time bomb, you shouldn't pour it out, so the solution is to use the stuff.

Not if your "solution" is to continue collecting it.
That as a solution would be to shut down all oil wells and burn through the oil reserves, vowing to never collect another drop.

53

Flat Earth General / Re: Fauci's Crimes Against Medicine

« on: December 02, 2024, 12:22:00 PM »

A man is standing at a crossroad. If he pursues one path, is he fleeing from the others?

It is more akin to you running from a city down a path.
You aren't trying to move on. You are doing whatever you can to avoid the issue which shows your model is wrong.

You in fact are fleeing from the truth that what Fauci

I am not fleeing from your irrelevant garbage.
It has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I have explained why the sun appears below the clouds.

i.e. NOT THE ISSUE BEING DISCUSSED!
Once more, we are not discussing the simple of how for someone below the clouds the sun can appear at an angle of elevation below the clouds.
Instead, the issue at hand is how the sun appears to shine upwards onto the bottom of clouds, so much so that a person in a plane flying above those clouds can see the sun shine through from below the clouds.

I explained why this cannot work using the behaviour of water, among other things. You did not accept my explanation.

You mean you entirely deflected from the issue and tried to yet again just argue the RE doesn't exist.
That is not showing this cannot occur for a RE.
This is deflecting from the issue.

I explained that there is no "magic" you superstitious Wiccan

Yet that is exactly what you need.
But you keep deflecting from the issue to pretend it doesn't.

I explained that your model doesn't work either.

No, you didn't. You repeatedly lied about and had your lies refuted only to flee from that refutation.
And posting a video of a known conman wont help you.

I explained that the sun isn't still either (in motion around the galaxy) so at the very least, the sun ought to be thrown, or if you feel like effort, the sun should be on a track. But while the sun is on track, planets and their moons cannot be made to spin, and all of this clutter starts to make the model heavy and awkward. You did not accept my explanation.

That isn't an explanation.
That is you complaining that you don't like the model.
You aren't showing any problem with it.

I don't need to justify myself. I don't need to respond to your questions.

Of course not.
You can continue acting like the lying coward you are.

Because when you failed to give me my  respect by accepting my explanation, when you called it BS

Respect is a 2 way street, and it is not automatic, it is earnt.
When you keep spouting the same refuted BS and refusing to address the problems with it, you do not deserve that respect.
If you don't want me to call your "explanation" BS, then stop proving the same BS.
You lost any right to demand respect when you kept repeating the same BS and kept ignoring the refutations of it.

A debate only works if both parties are invested in determining the truth.

And you clearly aren't.

A debate only works if people are engaging with the arguments presented and sticking to the issue.
It doesn't work if you keep deflecting, jumping around between a bunch of different issues and ignoring the refutation of your claims.

Anyway, I previously gave all of these answers at one point or another.

No, you didn't. You have NEVER provided answers. Instead you deflect and try to answer a different issue.
Just like you did above.
Instead of trying to explain how the light from the sun shines up onto the bottom of clouds, you instead tell us how the sun appears at a lower angle of elevation. Something that was never asked.
Because you can't explain the issue, you disrespect everyone by deflecting to a much simpler issue for you to discuss, to pretend you have answered.
You then further disrespect everyone by lying to everyone saying you have answered the questions.

So now, we're talking about Fauci

No, we are still talking about the sun and how you are a lying coward who need to continually flee from simple issues which trivially show your claims are pure BS.

If you dont trust fauci, can you trust your own ability to draw circles and triabgrls?

These were your words. If you were truly committed to the topic at hand, you would simply not have taken the bait.

In direct response to YOUR words:

The problem is, "experts" like Fauci ...

Where you decided to bitch about experts.
With the words by kabool clearly written in a way to tell you to stop bitching about them and focus on the topic, i.e. forget experts, focus on simple geometry.

Even look at how you have labelled it here, AS BAIT!
i.e. you were deflecting from the topic, putting down bait, hoping someone would bite and help you divert.
Further demonstrating you are a dishonest POS, with no honour and no integrity and not deserving of respect.

Observe how I handled questions that I decided were not relevant. I simply said from the onset that this is not something I care about, and I have already answered it.

i.e. you lied to everyone. Because either you care enough to have answered it, or you don't.

So we are gonna talk about Fauci's crimes,

No, we are going to talk about the sun, and how it shines up onto clouds from below (specifically just after sunset or just before sunrise for those on the ground).
How this makes absolutely no sense in the FE model, with you entirely incapable of explaining how this happens in the FE; and likewise how it makes perfect sense in the RE model, with you unable to justify why it wouldn't happen for a round Earth.
In fact, your reason for why it wouldn't happen for a round Earth actually works against the FE, refuting your own model.

If you don't like that, admit you have no explanation of how it works for a flat Earth, admit you have no argument for why it can't work for a round Earth.
Then we can move on.

Again, you still refuse to address the actual situation that is being discussed.
You still provide no explanation for how your delusional BS would work to produce what is observed, the sun illuminating the clouds, from below.
You still provide no explanation for how this can't work on the RE like you claimed.
You still provide no explanation for how the sun manages to magically "angle" itself to appear lower.
You still provide no justification at all for how everything is wrong, rather than just accepting that your garbage model doesn't work.
You still refuse to justify the BS image you provided, nor honestly respond to the refutation of it.

54

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

« on: December 02, 2024, 11:57:11 AM »

Would this convince you?

You mean lying scum trying to deflect at all costs. Just like you do?
Where the majority of the video is spent just throwing out insults and BS, before they even get to the point of trying to justify the midnight sun in Antarctica?
There is still no coherent model of a FE that can explain it without just pushing the problem somewhere else.

55

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Does anyone really believe the sun circles above us all the time?

« on: December 02, 2024, 02:42:01 AM »

Your knowledge has determined your beliefs and understanding of the world. That should hold up.

No, your experiences have determined your beliefs and understanding of the world. Your knowledge is a subset of that belief.

Now, to follow up, you have volunteered rhetorical elements to bolster your belief, with a powerful use of language that has zero to offer us in terms of measurable and reproducable experimentation or observations.

Did you bother reading the OP?

It is a quite reproducible observation. The sun is up for some people while being down for other people.

It's okay to disagree, but do so without projecting that belief; devoid of evidence whatsoever.

Like FEers do all the time?

56

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Density doesnt make things go up or down, gravity does.

« on: December 02, 2024, 02:32:47 AM »

I dont find conventional research quoting impure 'laws' like gavity which are just theories that fail to find the mark.

So you don't understand scientific theories and just reject those you don't like?

You are free to offer a better alternative.

57

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

« on: December 02, 2024, 02:28:59 AM »

I'm sorry about you feeling insulted. That was all I wanted to contribute before, and now this. This is all you, my arena is around. enjoy.

No, I don't feel insulted. You mean far too little for your words to do that. I just recognise that is all your words were. Nothing constructive.

58

Flat Earth General / Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?

« on: December 02, 2024, 02:20:50 AM »

I am resisting to grow.

you're completely missing the context here. As usual, you're trying to steer the conversation towards whether the Earth is flat or not, and attempting to prove why it can't be. However, the real issue is whether flat Earthers have stopped defending this position.

You mean you entirely diverted from the topic, spouted a bunch of pure BS, had it entirely refuted, and now want to back out?

The simple reality is that the reasons you provided are BS.

59

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

« on: December 02, 2024, 02:08:01 AM »

These kinds of users are so cringy, to me. JackBlack, I'm interested in your style of debate. It's, well, I better not say. I want to hear your take on why anyone should listen to you, as you are. It would serve you better to reserve your automatic response mechanism for your own metation, and not volunteer it here so readily. It injures your credibility.

Thank you, friendly advice unsolicited!! Forgive me

Do you have anything constructive to offer, or just pathetic insults?

60

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

« on: December 02, 2024, 02:06:53 AM »

Bulldozing trees is the lesser evil?

Yes, if you stop sucking the dick of big oil and honestly analyse it.

If I spill some oil on the ground, OMG the world is ended?

How about if you spill thousands of tonnes.
Spraying a little water isn't going to fix it. The best you get is spreading it.

I don't support the oil industry.

Yes, you do. With how you continually defend it.

I walk nearly everywhere. But between heating my home with gas/oil, and clearing the forest behind me to heat it with solar power, the latter has a smaller impact. Why? Well, that forest provided a habitat for turtles, snakes, foxes, pigeons, deer, wild boars, etc. I got oil delivered to my house and I have hot water any time I want it. Or I have hot water only when it's a sunny day, unless there is some sort of battery storage, and I've destroyed a habitat.

So as long as you can shift the problem somewhere else, you don't give a shit?