1.
But if light did bend the earth would look curved. Cet was not claiming it bends. if it looks flat wherever you have been it should indicate to you that bendy light is incorrect. that is CET's point, and you are subtly ignoring it by referencing it incoherently.
CET was claiming that if light bends, the Earth would appear to be curved. As such, it could not appear to be flat. However, the bending of light will not necessarily produce visible curvature of the Earth.
I think he has explained this in more detail as will be understood if you read his posts.
2.
Let me rephrase this so it is easier to understand:
"I would rather entertain a contradiction so that I do not have to accept the earth isn't flat"
Your 'rephrasal' is as stupid as it is petty. And where is the contradiction?
If it has more content, please explain. Thanks.
3.
Denial is not an argument.
Luckily, I have also presented an argument: in RET, the Earth appears to be locally flat. This is not disputed. Therefore, there is no more contradiction in saying that light bends, but the Earth appears to be locally flat, than there is in saying/ that the Earth is round, but appears to be locally flat.
This, you keep repeating, and yet it remains unconvincing.
4.
This is what needs to be explained.
Why does it need to be explained? Light bending in a manner that would produce visual phenomena identical to a spherical Earth, and so in RET the Earth appears to be flat despite not being so. Why does that not need to be explained?
Still the original thing I quoted needs to be explained. No amount of “well what about RE” I don’t care about RE, I care about you backing up your theory. I m not here to advocate specifically I am here to understand FE. It would be kind if you could do so with respect to the criticism levelled at FE, in CETs post. And again, Thanks.
5.
Let me try and understand you here, by putting this in logical form.
Premise: CET has argued that the earth can be spherical
Premise: he has also argued that the earth can still appear flat even if premise 1 is true.
therefore: the accusation that there is a contradiction with bendy light is fanciful.
yeah, ok...
You have misunderstood his argument completely.
As in, completely.
“his” argument? Is it not an argument you made?
I am not going to be held responsible for how people choose to communicate. I understand the general outline of the argument in the post, but this paragraph was nonsense.
6.
If you quote where I accused you of a fallacy, I will attempt to back it up. or retract it if I am wrong.
It is useless to conflate an argument pointing out a contradiction, with an argument that supports another theory. It is clearly a logical fallacy and shows a deep manichaenism.
This is called the fallacy of false alternatives. It states that just because you disprove a theory, it does not make the one you advocate correct.
And when flat earth is under discussion, instead of backing up your statement, you just mention what you think is wrong with RE. Even if the RE is wrong, it has no bearing on whether the flat earth is right.
7.
This
If the Earth can appear to be flat and still be a sphere,
Does not follow from this
I see no fallacy in claiming it appears to be flat and that light bends.
What do you mean it "does not follow"? The two statements have near-identical content. One does not "follow" from the other, one is the other.
they are isomorphic I agree, but "is" is taking it a little too far.
The fact is you ignore empirical evidence against FE(claiming it is part of a conspiracy or at least a lot of FE'ers do), so you can make equalizing statements like this. systems that are isomorphic need to be demarcated into what best explains the evidence. though evidence is disregarded here if it does not support FE, and so it is going to be almost impossible to change your mind because of the fallacy of iinvincible ignorance.
[Edit: Hated what I stated, so changed]