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 - sceptimatic

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 978
1
Thr stupidity on display here by a number of flat earthers is simply mindboggling.

They seem to think mankind only landed on the moon once and totally ignore the fact mankind landed on the moon seven (7) times. Each time, the astronauts saw and filmed the globe earth from the moon. Twelve (12) people have walked on the surface of the moon.

I agree. If the reality of earth being in space is superfluous to your life, then concentrate on your immediate environment life and don't even think or worry about the shape of the planet. Nobody else needs to know. Keep it to yourself. But know that if your self radicalisation is not held in check and you feel you must argue the shape of the entire world, know that you will have your ass handed to you.
Humans also landed on an asteroid the size of Texas.
In total 14 were to land but ended up trying to land 15 with one cosmonaut picked up from the devastated Russian space station.
Only 10 landed on the asteroid alive.
2 shuttles were sent up but only one made it because the other crashed.
I'm sort of an expert on this so I know it happened, just like you're an expert and know the moon landings happened, right?

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How much do you actually know?
« on: February 23, 2024, 07:11:46 AM »
Mankind is so familiar with the shape of the Earth, to suggest it is another shape is akin to someone questioning the shape of their own face as seen directly in a mirror.
If someone showed you a face in a picture and said it was your face and you had no way to view a reflection of your face or weren't allowed access to a camera to verify it then you have two choices. Either believe what you're told or try and find a way to verify for yourself.



Quote from: Smoke Machine
Everybody knows what their own face looks like, right?
Only of allowed access to a mirror.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
Time is again correct. That's how batshit crazy it is, to question the universally accepted shape of the Earth as a globe of a specific size. By all means, do some experiments in the name of science for shits and giggles if you must.
And you should do the same for the same giggles instead of simply accepting a storyline without any verification.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How much do you actually know?
« on: February 23, 2024, 02:09:17 AM »
The whole point of my last post was to highlight how powerful a belief in a higher being can be.
Anyone can claim anything is powerful if there's a belief in it.
I could pray to a wet blanket and ask for many things. The law of averages will dictate I get some of the things I asked for and many I won't. Just as you will for your god.

Some people Idolise a pop star and follow that music star everywhere even after the music star has passed on. Some will claim the music star guides them even after passing.
I could go on and on and on but you get my gist, I'm sure.

You simply take comfort in something you were coerced into and are now simply following because you believe some of what you asked for has been answered.

Quote from: Smoke Machine
I also clarified how powerful creative visualisation can be and that it and prayer could arguably be different names for the same thing.
I think they are different names for the same thing.
Manifestation could also be another name. There can be so many names attached to make one ideal in your scenario.

Quote from: Smoke Machine
Both create a tension between what you currently have and what you want to have. The biggest trick to making it work is to really feel that you have already received that which you have asked
for.
Yep, some people are deemed luckier than others when asking for things.
The luckier ones could cite divine intervention whilst others could cite lucky chance or bad luck or even a devil playing games.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
I know there are things you wish you had in your life, sceptimatic which you yearn for. I know, because you are human. Wise would argue you're just a bot, but I don't go along with that.
We all wish for many things whether it's to bring a loved one back to stop a loved one from passing, or simply wish for a better life in whatever form that may take.
Chance happenings can sometimes change a person's life for the better and that person could simply put that down to being in the right place at the right time or something happening that changed the course of their life. Maybe it was an accident that gave them a payout or a chance to meet a partner after a messy divorce or whatever.
You may put it down to your god intervening to ensure your prayers were answered.
It's all about a person's logic and what they perceive realistic happening to be.

Quote from: Smoke Machine
Your thoughts are energy. The force which animates that watery body of yours is energy too. If you have the guts and determination, you can bring into your life something that will be important to you. I could run off a series of examples from my own life, but that would just put you to sleep.
We can bring anything into our existence with nothing more than a dream from the thoughts of previous happenings in life and the wishes and wants down to the don't want.

Are those dreams real only when we sleep?
Or are they simply haphazard playback of what we recorded through our eyes and mind?
Or is it someone's god playing them?




Quote from: Smoke Machine
I love how you skip over addressing my previous post where I highlighted how satellites are used in my job in a myriad of different ways, regularly.
You mention satellites but you have no clue where those satellites are, except to be told they're in space.
One minute satellites are supposed to be geologically locked and the next they whizz about the sky and can be seen by yourself with some telescope as if they have a shape to them and can be identified from this space.
It's a load of gunk.



Quote from: Smoke Machine
The mere existence of satellites proves we live on a globe Earth.
There is no need for anything in the space they tell us exists. We can communicate just fine with earth-based transmitters based on high towers to high hills and high mountains.
Also, many things are high in the sky from aircraft of all kinds of descriptions.
No need for fictional space satellites.

Quote from: Smoke Machine
The ISS proves we live on a globe Earth daily.
No. It proves nothing other than an object is in the sky and can be tracked when people are told to track it.

Quote from: Smoke Machine
It would take you ten minutes one night, to locate the ISS travelling across the night sky to prove to yourself, the ISS is real.
Plenty have tried and plenty have come back with no joy.
I'm sure you'll argue your telescope is just magic and has given you pictures just how you were told they look, right?
If so then you go further down in my estimation of you, whether it bothers you or not.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
It would take you another ten minutes to locate one or two satellites to prove to yourself they too are real.
I could likely locate a blimp or similar, or even an aircraft. The word air is key.


Quote from: Smoke Machine

Oh, and that stuff I put in about my job - try finding a detective novel which mentions those things.
There are plenty of novels out there that tell all the stories of what you offer and also plenty of books with pictures.
I have nothing against you for reading them. Many people read books and become part of them on the internet so I'm not having a dig at you as such.
Maybe manifesting yourself through them as a little nudge and a wink and a slight dig but it's just a bit of fun.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How much do you actually know?
« on: February 22, 2024, 01:58:27 AM »
How does the Earth possibly being flat, enrich your life, sceptimatic? How?
I've just explained.
No matter what my mindset of what Earth may potentially be it can only enrich my mind, or not, mentally, not physically.
Only Earth that I  walk on and live as part of and what I physically do on and within it can only enrich my life and may also do the opposite in terms of physical.
The reality of that is, that none of us know for sure what Earth is.
You think you know because you were schooled/coerced into a narrative and you didn't grow out of that.

I grew out of your narrative and now have my thoughts which may or may not be entirely correct or even marginally.
Until we know the truth we are all playing guessing games based on what we perceive and deduce from what we have in our view or physical abilities to experiment, down to end products of theoretical about them, which again may not be correct.





Quote from: Smoke Machine
I did push uou on this and how it bringscone closer to their god, and nothing from you.
I don't believe in any god so none of that applies to me.
I grew out of a god just as I did with Santa Claus and the tooth fairy and so on and so on. I did this by applying logic but that certainly doesn't mean I don't respect people who do believe in a god but I can argue against that just as another could argue against me not believing in one. I just don't follow that god idolising idea.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
I heard about God from a church when I was a boy, and through experimentation proved to myself God is real and you can have a close bond with God.
So you were coerced into beliving in a god and now you believe you proved there is one.
How exactly did you prove there is one?

Through prayer. But it was more proving how powerful a belief in a higher being can be, rather than proving the existence of the higher being itself.
Basically, you're trying to say you asked something from your god and you believe it was answered so you now believe. Am I right to think this of you?
So although you were coerced into a belief you grew up not challenging it after you believed you asked for something and got it, even though you've likely asked for many things and not got them.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

 But don't worry, you're too old now and stuck in your ways to ever be able to muster the level of faith required and generate the extreme emotional commitment needed to make a prayer work.
If I don't believe in a god then I'm not going to ask for anything from something that offers no inclination of being there for me.
I respect your belief in a god but I do not share it and I will question the existence of a god just as you're sort of berating me for not believing.


Quote from: Smoke Machine

 Creative visualisation is another name for it.

I'd say that sounds about right and fair.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

From your responses here, you're also not brave enough to even try, preferring to hide away from the world and your problems in a land of make believe the world is flat and a giant cell organism.
Nahhhh. I live on/in Earth just as you do and my life goes on just as your life does and everyone else.
What I think about what Earth is or whether a god exists or not is simply just that...my thoughts.

If I want to do experiments to try and figure out alternatives to what I've been schooled/coerced into believing then that's my enjoyment or struggle, whichever way issues arise.

Your belief in a god is your way to give meaning to your existence. You believe you live on a spinning globe in a space vacuum is your way of accepting what you deem as authority telling you that. You decide to read detective novels whether fiction or told as factual and being able to recite much of them is your way of being part of those novels.

Some people need ways to navigate through their life and we all go about it in different ways.

You may feel praying to your god is a comfort for you. To make you feel less lonely. To have an ally and a reason to follow to the end to be offered some kind of afterlife with your god.
You can pray to your god many times a day and be thought noi less intelligent or less stad=nding in your community.
I could pray to an invisible friend called Stan and believe Stan is answering my prayers. For that, I'd be classed as a nutter and for that, I'd have no standing in my community except to be known as a wacko.
I could argue for creative visualisation but what would that make me?


5
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How do meteors work?
« on: February 21, 2024, 06:22:25 AM »
It depends on who you ask as there are many theories.
Mine is dome icicles that build and eventually break.

6
Flat Earth Believers / Re: Funny Globularist Things Make You Hmmm
« on: February 21, 2024, 06:14:47 AM »
I've enjoyed reading all these.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A charter for the mad?
« on: February 21, 2024, 05:11:44 AM »
There is a vast difference between proven science and theoretical science.
Of course and the key to all of it is to find out which is the proven science and which is only the theoretical science.

Quote from: Timeisup
Proven science as I keep saying to you is working all-around you 24/7 in all the tech you use, the car you drive and every time you flip a switch or turn on your central heating.
No.
Science is working all around us in our own 24.7-time make-up.
That doesn't mean proven science is because a lot of stuff is said to work on gravity, as an instance so that has not been proven so the science of something working is not proof of it working in that context, except to be told it is and accept it or be ridiculed by authority.

By all means, argue it but you know it's not proven.
Unless you have something to offer.


Quote from: Timeisup
The irony is everything you believe in is at odds with the reality of every day life.
In your mind it is and that's fine. But the reality is, you don't actually know this.

Quote from: Timeisup
All these things work despite what you choose to believe.
Lots of things work but it doesn't mean the science behind them is the actual 100% truth of the entirety. (refer back to the gravity story).


Quote from: Timeisup
WE seldom come into contact with the theoretical stuff whereas the proven and verified are all around us in the very fabric of the modern world.
We seldom come into contact with theoretical stuff because there's no proof.
We don't come into contact with the reality of a fictional story but the stories are all there and can be plausible in the minds of those who write them and those who read them.
Why?
Because a fictional story could theoretically mimic a real story in many similarities.

Quote from: Timeisup
For you and your beliefs it's a big problem that you close your eyes to and put your fingers in your ears and sing the la la la song.
It's not a problem for me to refuse to accept stories told and sold as factual when they may not represent fact, which is why I can decide to look for alternate reasoning.
It doesn't require your approval or anyone else as to whether my reasoning has validation. It only matters that I can decide on a better fit even if that fit is not a reality until proven and may never be proven, just as lots of stuff in the mainstream has not been proven.

Quote from: Timeisup
You say this as though its common place:-

"It's the science that hasn't been validated and simply resides in the hypothetical or apparent scientific theory"

Thats no more than a red herring to help justify the stance you take.
It's no red herring it's simply what is.

Quote from: Timeisup
Much of the actual knowledge you reject has been know for hundreds of years and is enshrined in scientific laws.
Such as?
Say one thing and back it up.

Quote from: Timeisup
If you actually knew anything about those laws you would soon learn how ridiculous your own unsupported views are.
Unsupported means nothing when the majority mindset has been in operation for such a long time.
The majority can channel enough pressure on a minority to make that minority follow that majority's view, even if they were told white was grey.
You know this.
It's simply called social influence.

Quote from: Timeisup
Those laws are what nature has decided and we have only discovered.
No. The laws are what humans decided from nature and those laws may well be wrong and an alternative to them may very well be in the waiting.

Quote from: Timeisup
You in your wisdom think you know better than nature and have decided the world operates according to your own particular unfounded wishes.
Nope. You're making stuff up.
I don't know better than nature and nor does anyone else.
What I do know for sure is, that I don't need to follow a majority just because I'm told a majority claims to win the theoretical toss of their coin.

Quote from: Timeisup
Thats the long and short of it.
That's not anything of it.
Quote from: Timeisup
  You are 100% percent wrong ask any expert in heat engines of fluid mechanics or vacuum chambers and everyone will tell you as I do that you are wrong in what you believe.
What exactly are you telling me?
You can't seem to explain it.


Quote from: Timeisup
Your position is the eventual outcome of when validated expert knowledge is rejected
My position is quite simple. I don't simply believe something that doesn't offer up a reality to me and my alternative to whatever arguments are simply my theories or hypotheticals, whichever way you want to look at them.
It means I don't offer anything as fact but I do offer my take which can be discarded by all if people wish because I simply don't offer them as factual anyway.
The issue people like yourself have is I stand solid on my thoughts and that becomes an arrogance to people like you and so then becomes me offering facts in your mind which then makes you come out with what you're saying in this post.
Just remember one thing. You're arguing for what you think are your facts but you have no clue personally as to whether they are factual, in terms of what you're trying to argue against with me..

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why are Experts so feared?
« on: February 21, 2024, 02:11:04 AM »
Possibly jackB doesnt like the relgious notion that morality requires an moral expert

And intelligence requires a design expert



Or he doesnt like absolutes.
If intelligence requires a design expert then who designed the design expert?

And also, what exactly is intelligence?

Does intelligence become specific to humans or is it specific to all life?
And back to the start. What is intelligence and how is it defined?

Ours is not to wonder why, septic boy, ours is just to do or die.
Life is about wondering why, not to just be born and to live and to die.
You wouldn't read detective novels if you didn't wonder about the books.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A charter for the mad?
« on: February 21, 2024, 01:46:28 AM »

The discussions on this forum can generally be explained away by people having wildly different interpretations of the same knowledge or data. You say it’s flat I say it’s round….. take your pick. Some base opinions on science and the evidence while some choose belief and then alter things to suit, such as making the sun small and near so it fits with their beliefs. In opting for the flat earth version the rejection of a large part of science has to take place along with the expert opinion that helped to create it.

Is ditching  the expert view for our own interpretation a viable option? Just how much of the knowledge we take for granted can be accurately self verified or reinterpreted?

 I would suggest very little .

The main point to consider would be why, why bother when the answers are already there? The areas of knowledge that have no definitive answers such as the nature of the subatomic world are so well beyond the scope of the average person that there is no point in speculation. It might be fun to speculate but that’s about it. What is to be gained from attempting to verify all the knowledge one has when its verification is in reality  well beyond the capabilities of any individual to accurately carry out.

Many school and undergraduate courses make use of lab work where experiments are carried out to prove known laws; ohms laws, Newtons laws of motion are all used to give students a better understanding of the subject to enable farther study. These experiments under controlled conditions where the answer is beyond doubt are a far cry from some lone individual with a digital camera and axe to grind who points a digital camera at Saturn and comes to a conclusion to suit their beliefs while ignoring the actual science and the body of verified data that’s already available in the public domain. Data that all experts in the field of astronomy agree on. When it comes to a subject like Saturn there is no disagreement about its motion among astronomers. The only disagreements to be found are from flat earth believers.

Setting up an experiment to verify the shape of our own planet takes some know how and planning with an attention to detail, but why bother when perfectly good images of the planet can be found revealing the truth. Why the need to check and verify? There is no other alternative answer to be had.

Aside from the shape of the planet what about all other areas of knowledge, from the Cosmos to the sub-atomic. Not only would the vast majority of people lack the basic understanding of all the subjects involved but they would  also lack the facilities to enable them to carry out any knowledge validation, and in the end what is there to gain? And more importantly what is there to loose?

People who don’t like what the experts say simply make up their own version that relies not on facts but on belief. Flat earth belief revolves around alternative verification or more accurately  reinterpretation of accepted knowledge. Flat earthers deal with it by simply rejecting accepted knowledge on a wide range of subjects and replacing it with a non scientific narrative based on belief and acceptance of a complex world wide conspiracy. They believe that they are actively being lied to about a wide range of subjects. The irony is they have no actual proof of any conspiracy but it’s an essential requirement for their belief system. As no actual evidence exists to support their beliefs they have to construct a narrative to lend some degree of credibility to their beliefs.

 In one fell swoop a satellite image of the Earth disproves all flat earth beliefs which for flat earth believers is very inconvenient, hence their need to rule them out, hence their need for a global conspiracy that states, rather conveniently, that all satellite images are faked!

All this then prompts the question;
Is a quest to self verify accepted knowledge desirable?
This is especially true when non experts are involved who in reality may have little understanding of the subject under investigation. When people who have scant knowledge but a strong belief start questioning accepted  knowledge they will invariably go for answers that suits their beliefs and the facts be dammed. This leads  people to make wildly inaccurate statements about the nature of the planets such as Saturn. Having people who are basically ignorant of a subject make proclamations about  that subject can lead to unfortunate problems. Aside from flat earth belief and its associated conspiracies, the anti vax movement that thrives on inaccuracies actually causes harm by spreading falsehoods about vaccines.

I would say having non- experts proclaiming about subjects they have no actual knowledge or training in is a bad idea. There are many threads on this forum that display that very thing; non experts making false statements about subjects that in reality they know little to nothing about. The irony is if they did know something about the subject they would most likely not be making the inaccurate statements they make.

I would suggest this desire to validate knowledge through personal experience is another aspect of belief in conspiracy. Not only not trusting  the mechanisms in society to provide the truth but believing  they may be actively being lied to  about certain mature knowledge certainly smacks of conspiracy.

Knowing and understanding scientific concepts does not come by magic as it often requires a great deal of study and hard work. The idea that people can validate and confirm all the knowledge they have is not only ludicrous but also impossible. It’s no more than a charter for mad people to make up stuff to suit their own particular beliefs and to hell with the science.

While not trusting politicians is understandable not trusting science is very different. While politicians are individuals with an agenda science is global and is based to a large extent on consensus and agreements based on the best possible evidence. If someone comes out with suspect looking data there will be others who will promptly challenge it. Case in point was the fiasco over cold fusion and the claim that particles in an experiment were travelling faster than light. The world of science is to an extent self regulating when it comes to scientific verification of data.
While there will always be disagreement about the frontiers of science as there is so much still to know and confirm. When it comes to more established mature knowledge that has been known and understood for some time there appears to be little point in taking issue with the world wide consensus.

Is the need to self validate known knowledge no more than an excuse and a charter for mad people to simply reject science and make stuff up?
There's a lot more to that than just simply a thought on people rejecting science.
It's the science that hasn't been validated and simply resides in the hypothetical or apparent scientific theory but is offered as a fact at the time until such a time it can be changed to suit another narrative.


10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How much do you actually know?
« on: February 21, 2024, 01:33:07 AM »
How does the Earth possibly being flat, enrich your life, sceptimatic? How?
I've just explained.
No matter what my mindset of what Earth may potentially be it can only enrich my mind, or not, mentally, not physically.
Only Earth that I  walk on and live as part of and what I physically do on and within it can only enrich my life and may also do the opposite in terms of physical.
The reality of that is, that none of us know for sure what Earth is.
You think you know because you were schooled/coerced into a narrative and you didn't grow out of that.

I grew out of your narrative and now have my thoughts which may or may not be entirely correct or even marginally.
Until we know the truth we are all playing guessing games based on what we perceive and deduce from what we have in our view or physical abilities to experiment, down to end products of theoretical about them, which again may not be correct.





Quote from: Smoke Machine
I did push uou on this and how it bringscone closer to their god, and nothing from you.
I don't believe in any god so none of that applies to me.
I grew out of a god just as I did with Santa Claus and the tooth fairy and so on and so on. I did this by applying logic but that certainly doesn't mean I don't respect people who do believe in a god but I can argue against that just as another could argue against me not believing in one. I just don't follow that god idolising idea.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
I heard about God from a church when I was a boy, and through experimentation proved to myself God is real and you can have a close bond with God.
So you were coerced into beliving in a god and now you believe you proved there is one.
How exactly did you prove there is one?



11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How much do you actually know?
« on: February 21, 2024, 12:50:51 AM »
I would add that flatearthery is the way we all view the world up until age 4 or 5 when we are taught at school that outside our little world, the entire world is a globe. Flatearthery can therefore be looked upon as a return to childhood before school, to a simpler time in life, before any mainstream learning or responsibility.

The funny thing is, I pushed scepti and others to demonstrate how their mode of thinking enriches their lives or brings them closer to God, but nothing - cricket noises.

You never pushed me on anything like that.
Whatever anyone thinks about whatever shape their Earth may be to them will only enrich their lives or not, mentally and that includes yourself being schooled into a shape coerced into you.

As for a god. Do you believe in a god and if so how did it come about?
Schooled or appearance from this god?


12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why are Experts so feared?
« on: February 21, 2024, 12:43:53 AM »
Possibly jackB doesnt like the relgious notion that morality requires an moral expert

And intelligence requires a design expert



Or he doesnt like absolutes.
If intelligence requires a design expert then who designed the design expert?

And also, what exactly is intelligence?

Does intelligence become specific to humans or is it specific to all life?
And back to the start. What is intelligence and how is it defined?

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: They've lied to the world about the stars
« on: February 20, 2024, 03:34:13 AM »
And the very same person who also can't find any proof of his steadfast acceptance of a global Earth but steadfastly argues for it whilst also offering himself up as someone who investigates.
You weren't asking for proof that Earth is round. You were asking for proof he was a cop.

You have been provided with plenty of proof that Earth is round. You just dismiss it because it doesn't match your fantasy.
You ignore things which show you are wrong, doing whatever you can to escape.
You would benefit from paying attention then you wouldn't need to state the obvious.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: They've lied to the world about the stars
« on: February 20, 2024, 02:33:55 AM »
From someone who believes in crap they say about ‘space’, without a clue about it, thanks for the advice, you would know proof better than anyone would!

Well, I have been a police officer for 25 years and been a detective for some of that time, and a trained forensic crash investigator, so yes, I would know proof better than most people would!
Any proof?

Plenty. But none for an imbecile who can't find proof the Earth is a globe.
The answer I expected.
Straight into attack mode to deck out of proof.

And the very same person who also can't find any proof of his steadfast acceptance of a global Earth but steadfastly argues for it whilst also offering himself up as someone who investigates.

A book reader by any chance?
Detective novels?


15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: They've lied to the world about the stars
« on: February 17, 2024, 06:45:07 AM »
From someone who believes in crap they say about ‘space’, without a clue about it, thanks for the advice, you would know proof better than anyone would!

Well, I have been a police officer for 25 years and been a detective for some of that time, and a trained forensic crash investigator, so yes, I would know proof better than most people would!
Any proof?

16
Again, see this image you have been provided with several times:


As we can clearly see from the angle of the purple lines, if you starting looking straight down, and follow the ground, it initially goes to a higher angle (as you would say it "appears to rise", before reaching a point where it goes back down.
Your lines are not looking level at any time.
You are showing a view that offers only an angled descent of view on any of those lines.

Try offering up those lines from a level view. A pinpoint telescopic view from a level start and see where the lines take you.

Let's see you do that.

17
The Lounge / Re: What has happened??
« on: February 17, 2024, 06:20:12 AM »
I don't think the site is dying. Of course, there's always going to be a lull at times and a lot of potential alternative thinkers will likely be put off when they see the globalists going beserk trying to defend the globe.

You see the alternative thinkers don't back each other up regardless of not agreeing with each other's stance, whereas the globalists back each other up as if they were one entity. Hmmmmm.
Anyway, what happens is, the globalists appear to be the majority and don't have to think much because all their work is done for them and it's simply at the touch of a button/key.

Having said that some global believers do possess the ability to think for themselves and can be interesting and will interact with alternative thinkers. There just aren't many of them.

For those people who have their thoughts on what Earth is or anything then start posting and interacting and don't let anyone bully you out of those thoughts, no matter how outlandish you think they may be to others or how certain people will try their best to try and ridicule.
The ridiculers are the weak ones so never forget that.

The mods and admin are pretty fair on here and allow all sides to go their distance so nobody can complain about that.

It's fine to disagree and it's also fine to have your very own thoughts. Just don't be scared to put them out there and learn to stand by your ideals. But try and be nice even when it's not afforded to you.

So, to all you potential posters looking in and to all those who have taken a break because they feel alienated, then I suggest you get posting and bring more life back into this forum.








18

 Modern proof.

I came across this video.  I think it is compelling and reasonable proof showing no doubt the earth is curved.

Quote

Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km





The rate the building is blocked by the horizon is reasonable proof of earth’s curvature.




 It seems your 29.7 miles is very very close to the 8 inches per mile squared for what the globe would be said to offer.
So are you going with this?

Are you now accepting your globe to be 8 inches per mile squared?
Seeing as you're offering this then I'd assume you are.
Yes or no and explain if no.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

  sceptimatic, you are derailing this thread with totally debunked and meaningless word salad.  It’s pretty sad.  You have what?  Dedicated your posts for 10 years to lies that are easily proven to be lies?.
You tend to use this excuse when you're struggling.
The thread was derailed way before I entered.
In fact all threads with lengthy posts get derailed because that's the nature of arguments within them.

19


The horizon is theoretical

No.  It’s an actual physical thing that can be calculated and measured.

Explain how you can measure it?
Tell me how you hit this supposed line of yours.


Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

and only the pinpoint centre of your eye

Something you made up that is not seen in mirrors, convex mirrors, concave mirrors, and the various sizes of lenses and camera sensor sizes.
Not sure what you're getting at with this.

20
It doesn't rise to any eye level.
The horizon is ... a level horizontal to that pinpoint of your eye.
If you are going to say it doesn't rise to eye level, don't then go and effectively claim that it rises to eye level.
I don't claim it rises to eye level. I claim the theoretical horizon is at eye level at all times, not rising nor falling, and is dependent entirely on the actual person rising or falling whilst keeping eye level.
Two entirely different scenarios.


Quote from: JackBlack
The horizon is theoretical
No, it is very much physical.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest it is theoretical.
There's everything to suggest it. Read above my reply to smokey.


Quote from: JackBlack
Observations of it show it is located a certain physical distance away from you (which varies depending on factors such as your altitude), and remains that regardless of what optics are used.
The theoretical line is only located at a distance from your standpoint at the time. Move forward and your horizon moves with you. Why? VBecause your eye level dictates the distance of contrasting light back to your eyes.

Quote from: JackBlack
Observations of it show how the Earth below blocks the view to distant objects.
No it doesn't.


Quote from: JackBlack
It is just as physical as the horizon on a basketball.
You are trying to offer up a basketball without you not being on it and simply looking from a distance from it to create your so-called line.
If you want to argue your horizon line then do it from the point of you being on that basketball looking with a level sight.

Here's a challenge for you which I'm almost sure you won't bother with.
Place a camera on that basketball and level it and understand that to level it over a continuous downward curve will never offer you a view of any so-called line of that ball.

Go on and try it.

Quote from: JackBlack
This happens because of the change in light back to the eye with the below portion of the viewing being less reflective back to the eye against the higher portion of sky viewing being much lighter back to the eye.
Again, if that pure BS was true, you would have a region of darkness.
You do have a region of contrast at all times and some of it will always be darker to your eye due to light filtering below than above due to the terrain or water not being able to return the light to the entirety of the eye.


Quote from: JackBlack
That BS of yours cannot explain why objects appear to sink and appear to be blocked by Earth.
Stop just asserting crap and try drawing a picture explaining how it works.
Explain what magic causes objects to appear to sink and be blocked by Earth from the bottom up.
I explained this to smokey. Have a read above.

21
I name call everybody. No need to feel special or targetted. Unless sceptimatic is your name in the outside world as well?
It matters not about the name and whether it's an alias or real. The fact you try to use name-calling as some kind of addition to your argument just shows how weak you are. That's all I'm saying and you're well within your rights (as far as I'm concerned) to use whatever wording you wish against me as it does actually make me smile and I'm simply pointing out your weaknesses.
I think you're fairly interesting in some ways but you do suffer from the above.



Quote from: Smoke Machine
I'm not frustrated and expect nothing less from what I get from you. Maybe one day you'll take my advice and put your crazy ideas into a comic book where they belong. I'm sure you can read, right? So, I'm sure you've read the arguments I have with Jackoff and DribbleOverFlow, aka the Dribbler?
I read most things and your little games with various posters are quite funny in a way where you try to divide opinion and play your games.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
No coattails to swing from there, just like there is nothing theoretical about a photo showing the horizon out at sea or anywhere else. How can you say a photo of something is just theoretical when it can be photographed?
I never said a photo was theoretical. It's a picture but what it depicts is only what the eye perceives which is simply a theoretical horizon line if taken over an area of contrast.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
The horizon line is a physical line.
Nope, it's not.
Let's say you see your horizon line at 3 miles from shore. Go to that line. Did that line move farther away as soon as you set off to view it?
Course it did and your next line and next line consistently appear in your eye because of the contrast changes as you move.
Do you think you'd hit the 3-mile mark and see a line drawn in the water?  ;)


Quote from: Smoke Machine
It's a line of the shape of the Earth.
How could that be when your (fictional) globe would only offer you a downward curve away from your level vision?


Quote from: Smoke Machine
If i want to do a seascape painting, I'll be painting the horizon line.
You'll be painting a contrast of colouring that's all. You will not be drawing any line.

Quote from: Smoke Machine
The rest of your flat earth tribe use the horizon line which at first glance is straight, as evidence the Earth is flat.
I don't have any tribe so what others say is their thoughts.
I use a theoretical horizon line so this is what you're dealing with, with me.
Using others as an argument offers nothing against what I'm saying.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
Here you are, going against your tribe, saying the horizon isn't evidence of anything, it's just an illusion created by an eyeball, which you forget is duplicated by any camera.
The only thing duplicated is what you see which is placed onto a background of paper/material. It's light contrasts.

22

Tell that to all the FEers claiming that the horizon always rises to eye level.


It doesn't rise to any eye level.
The horizon is theoretical and only the pinpoint centre of your eye at any height will create a level horizontal to that pinpoint of your eye.
This happens because of the change in light back to the eye with the below portion of the viewing being less reflective back to the eye against the higher portion of sky viewing being much lighter back to the eye.
This is where the line is theoretically drawn and why we see it as our horizon.

why is it theoretical?
i can literally see a distinct sky and a distinct land/sea.

Of course you can but that's not a line. It's merely a contrast.


Quote from: Themightykabool
if i literally draw two concentric circles and then a stick coming off the inside circle, but not touching the out circle, i can draw a line from the top of the stick-tangent inside circle-hits point on outside circle

the outside circle is the sky
the inside circle is the earth
the stick is my eye level.
the tangent line intersection is the horizon


do triangles and circles not exist in sceppy's world?
That's you drawing a line. It has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
Unless I'm missing your point and if so then clarify what you're saying.

23

First of all the jets answer the question perfectly well.


They demonstrate there is no magic disappearing from “atmosphere”.
A jet in the sky will simply demagnify into distance concerning the human eye. It will never offer up any theoretical horizon line because the light surrounding it is very closely the same  and cannot offer discernible contrast to our view, whereas the sea certainly can or even a low-lying dense fog.


Quote from: DataOverFlow2022
The reason a ship gets blocked bottom up as it travels over the horizon where the bottom can’t be brought back into view by binoculars or telescope is because the curvature of the earth physically blocks it from view.
It really is that simple.  No matter what word salad lies you post changes that fact.

Sorry.
No ship or anything else travels over any horizon.
The horizon is simply theoretical. It's a line we theoretically perceive from a distance because of changes in light and contrast.

All you see is a ship that loses light or gains in contrast below against light above that simply offers the illusion it sinks which it certainly does not.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is Our Planet Much Bigger Than They Tell Us?
« on: February 09, 2024, 08:48:48 AM »
He's got every right to question.
Not anymore.
He had that option previously.
And still has every option he wants to use. It's simply not up to you to decide. You can ignore what's said but you don't get to dictate.

Quote from: JackBlack
But he brought this dishonest BS up repeatedly, ignored the refutation, and fled.
In your mind.

Quote from: JackBlack
In doing, they lost their right to bring up this pathetic lie yet again.
Nope, he still has the right, and just because you refute anything that goes against your globe does not offer you any rights or facts, except in your mind.

Quote from: JackBlack
No matter which way you look at it, if your Earth was the globe you adhere to then your planes would have to descend all of the time to keep altitude with the below terrain to navigate your globe.
Repeating his lie for him wont help you.
The simplest way to recognise that argument is pure BS is to recognise you make the exact same argument but claim they need to ascend all the time.
Nope, I never mentioned ascend.
I used the word descend because that's what would need to happen if a plane was navigating the Earth you believe in.


Quote from: JackBlack
Considering the argument can be equally used to show a plane must ascend as it can show a plane must descend, it must necessarily be pure BS.
Not at all. Nobody's arguing for a plane ascending and you're simply trying to twist it as per usual.


Quote from: JackBlack
If you would like to try justifying that pure BS, go ahead. Don't just assert it.
It's justified quite easily.
The fact you ignore the simple facts is not my issue.

25

Tell that to all the FEers claiming that the horizon always rises to eye level.


It doesn't rise to any eye level.
The horizon is theoretical and only the pinpoint centre of your eye at any height will create a level horizontal to that pinpoint of your eye.
This happens because of the change in light back to the eye with the below portion of the viewing being less reflective back to the eye against the higher portion of sky viewing being much lighter back to the eye.
This is where the line is theoretically drawn and why we see it as our horizon.

26
Yes, sceptimatic, comic books. Comic books are the perfect medium for your flat earthery to be expressed in. Not Marvel comics or DC comics, though. Neither war comics or cowboy comics. Not Manga comics either. Something more along the line of Archie comics.

As for me calling you names, I'm calling you the pseudonym you came up for yourself. I'm calling you your name, stretched out in it's full meaning. Scepti is short for sceptical, isn't it? Matic is short for automatic or could be a twist on manic which is a derivative of maniac. I applaud you. You chose a name for yourself which fits you perfectly. You are automatically sceptical of everything because you trust nobody and nothing, which also makes you a sceptical maniac.

But, because you deal in nothing but shit, it is also fitting that at first glance at your name, scepti looks and sounds like septic, which is even more fitting to your personality. You are a shit dealer, a dealer in shit.

It would not surprise me in the slightest if in real life you are a plumber.

Just because you imagine denpressure is crushing everything down to the ground, doesn't mean it is. Just because you like to reverse engineer magnification in your head and sprinkle it with pixie dust to make it work in Neverland, doesn't make it work in the real world.

Your setup is in Fantasia or Neverland, or a comic book. Show us your diagram like I said, framed in a comic book panel. But of course you won't because your excuse is your explanation will be lost on someone of my ilk.

Your theories are perfect for an Archie comic and you could get Jugghead to present them.
You seem very frustrated.
One day it might help you to put some thought into something.
Surely going beserk and name-calling and digging like hell can't satisfy you after all this time.


Hanging onto the coattails of some of the globalists on here and trying to have as much global paraphernalia at hand ready to argue for your mates and their globe, doesn't offer you any facts.
It just offers you the chance to feel smug enough to have any answer at the drop of your hat. That's not using your intelligence, it's merely regurgitating reactionary stories at a click, on a whim.

Just an extension of the rest.




27
atmospheric magnification or demagnification.

Used these jets in another thread. 

But, why don’t they become physically blocked from view at distances greater than the horizon. 

But if I was on the coast, ships much closer would start to become physically blocked from view bottom up as they went beyond the horizon.

Where these jets much father away don’t exhibit any properties of disappearing bottom up?



1. Front first, not top down. Again. I have showed this with a railroad video.

Hmm.

Besides the things pointed out by jack that your wrong? 

I was watching a jet.  It was about 10 or 20 miles away?  Way outside your supposed parabola of perception.  I’m guessing it’s was flying around 360 miles per hour.  (6 x 60 mph to make the math easy) I watched with my naked eyes and recorded the jet just over two minutes.  I can post the video if you like.  So.  In 2 minutes the jet would have traveled around 12 miles. The edge to your parabola from the center in 1.5 miles?  12 miles being 8 times the distance to the edge of what you call our perception.  Plus the jet already being 10 or 20 miles away. 

The jet contrail from the engines was entirely visible the entire time.  The contrail disappeared from evaporation close to me, away from me, towards the jet.

Remember this is 3x zoom.









Close up of the last picture.




Another jet recorded for 1:28 minute.  About 10 miles away. Could see with the naked eye.  Using 3x zoom.





. There is no indication of a “perception wall” and “light breaking down” such as your delusional parabola.  There is a limit of resolution based on the object’s size with distance, how well it is illuminated, clarity of the atmosphere, and the ability to gather light.  Again.  Objects over the horizon can’t be brought back with zoom because they are physical blocked by the curvature of the earth.
First of all the jets answer the question perfectly well.
They are high up in the sky and create no theoretical horizon line to the eye because they're always saturated with light against light, not a dark dense sea or land.
Also, the jets do get smaller to the eye which is simply demagnification from your eye which you can bring back with magnification using a scope but also be made to appear more magnified depending on the local (to you) climate.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is Our Planet Much Bigger Than They Tell Us?
« on: February 05, 2024, 08:37:53 AM »
It is not possible to fly in a constant descent
Again, you have already had this pathetic, dishonest BS of yours repeatedly refuted and you implicitly admitted it is pure BS.
You then fled like a pathetic, lying coward.
You have lost the right to bring up this BS.
You are wrong. Deal with it.

So no, planes do not prove Earth is flat.
That is just your pathetic lie.

If you want to regain the right to have your BS addressed, admit you are continually lying and you know your argument is pure BS. Then ask for me to explain why your argument is pure BS.
He's got every right to question.
You are not the authority on anything and nobody needs your permission to have anything addressed.
What Turbo says about the descent is bang on in a logical address but that logic seems to always make you angry.


No matter which way you look at it, if your Earth was the globe you adhere to then your planes would have to descend all of the time to keep altitude with the below terrain to navigate your globe.
It simply cannot happen without instruments showing this to be the case and we all know the instruments do not show anything in level flight, other than level flight.

29
Yep, like I said.

Flat Earth is the world around you with an absence of science and the inclusion of comic book style pseudoscience, or as I like to put it, bullshit.
It depends on who is reading the bull.
You're trying to argue against me based on nothing more than picking up a relevant article to argue your case for you.
Blind acceptance of things that are said to be factual does not mean you know the facts.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
Why let the truth get in the way of a good story, right, Septicmaniac? Lay that septic bullshit on thick, maniac, you're a flat earther through and through! The flat earth community applauds your efforts!
Use as many name-callings as you feel comfortable using. If it helps you to feel a bit stronger from your weak self then who am I to knock that from you?



Quote from: Smoke Machine
Care to do a diagram of this demagnification and loss of light to the naked eye followed up with magnification of light back to the eye to make ships on the horizon become obscured from the bottom up?
I would but it would be lost on people like you because you have absolutely no clue about my setup even after so many explanations.



Quote from: Smoke Machine
Present your diagram in a fitting comic book panel, ok? Dum ditty dum ditty dum dum dum.
Comics eh? It makes sense.

30
Demagnification and loss of light to the naked eye and magnification of light back to the eye, respectively.
i.e. pure magic with nature itself conspiring to make Earth appear round?

If it was simply light not making it back to the eye, we would have a band of darkness.
Instead, objects are observed to appear to sink into Earth, with Earth blocking the view.

There is no reason at all for just the bottom to vanish, nor for the entire object to appear lower.

If your delusional BS was true, what we would observe would be more like this:

With a region of darkness where the light is blocked, where we don't see anything.

Why don't you try drawing a diagram?

It doesn't get blocked by any curvature, it's as explained above.
Then why do so many observations indicate it does?
Blacking out a portion of a picture offers you nothing against what I'm saying.
Demagnification does not mean painting black over a picture as if you have some kind of argument.


How about using an actual telescope or a pair of binoculars and see what you have to alter the focus?
This is what the atmosphere is doing and is the reason why you can see farther or nearer depending on the atmospheric magnification or demagnification.



Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 978