The Million Dollar Question

Orbisect, you have to consider arguments for both sides in order to make an educated decision.  Don't you agree?

He is considering arguments for both sides. Why do you think he's (assuming a male) saying what he's saying.
He talks a lot of sense and is being rational. It's good to see another take on things in this way. It beats the hell out of you people parroting the same stuff about stuff we can all reads in ready made textbooks.

I tend to agree.  If you are trying to incite a debate, then please do not do it in the Q&A forum.

You're welcome to move the entire post to another forum. I don't feel like copy/pasting the parts they want to argue about.

Thing is, I've already argued all these points with other people on other forums. I know their arguments, and their arguments NEVER change (they're never original, and they all sound like preprogrammed robots). I've discussed the two experiments in regards to evolution as evidence for the existence of God. And I've even discussed the relativity matter with close friends. People have such an emotional attachment to relativity, that they can't fathom having to let go of it—although they've never once used it for anything! And when you ask them if the world would change if relativity suddenly disappeared, would life get more difficult, would life as we know it cease to exist? they admit that it wouldn't make any difference; and yet, because they grew up with it, they're emotionally attached, and they want to defend it like it's their mother... And this is what they do with flat earth as well, but for a very small group, NO ONE wants to challenge what they've been taught from infancy—modern science is their mother, and their god. Truth is, scientists are mothers, and science is their god.

But because we reap what we sow, there are penalties when men make science their god. (Romans 1:18-32)

My question to you, seeing your a moderator, and thus I presume you're on the flat-earth side: Is there another website for flat-earthers that is more controlled, where they don't let in enemies of the thing they're trying to investigate?

You know, generals and leaders don't let enemies in their planning chambers—and I'm quite sure evolutionists don't invite religious oriented people into their inner circles. It's counterproductive in so many ways. THEY don't stand for it... and yet the FES does.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on June 24, 2015, 11:03:01 PM

Orbisect, you have to consider arguments for both sides in order to make an educated decision.  Don't you agree?

He is considering arguments for both sides. Why do you think he's (assuming a male) saying what he's saying.
He talks a lot of sense and is being rational. It's good to see another take on things in this way. It beats the hell out of you people parroting the same stuff about stuff we can all reads in ready made textbooks.

Exactly! You hit the nail on the head.

We already know what the textbooks say. I'm told all the time to say something original that I didn't read somewhere else... Here I present just that, and the same kind of people reverse the argument that I should "parrot the things already written."

They don't understand what true "Critical Thinking" is. Their view of critical thinking, which they've been taught, is acquiescence, compliance, complaisance, commonality, DOCILE CONFORMITY.

They're not taught to question, they're taught not to question, they're taught to conform to the collective. They're robots. And they don't even realize their freewill has been stolen.

What are you babbling on about?

Quote from: mikeman7918 on June 24, 2015, 11:03:01 PM

Orbisect, you have to consider arguments for both sides in order to make an educated decision.  Don't you agree?

He is considering arguments for both sides. Why do you think he's (assuming a male) saying what he's saying.
He talks a lot of sense and is being rational. It's good to see another take on things in this way. It beats the hell out of you people parroting the same stuff about stuff we can all reads in ready made textbooks.

Nice assertions. Now do you have anything besides "he's talks a lot of sense because he's making shit up on the spot"

He is considering arguments for both sides.

Oh really?

I began to catalogue all the arguments FOR flat earth, and scientifically examine each one.

And he's clearly neglecting to look at arguments AGAINST flat Earth, which is necessary to make an educated decision.  If you only look at one side of the argument you can't make an informed decision, in fact propaganda works by ignoring the opposing side and that's why it's so persuasive. 

He could do that simply by running his pro flat earth arguments past me, I have a fair bit of experience debunking flat Earth "proofs".

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 25, 2015, 04:05:55 AM

He is considering arguments for both sides.

Oh really?

Quote from: Orbisect-64 on June 22, 2015, 11:43:05 AM

I began to catalogue all the arguments FOR flat earth, and scientifically examine each one.

And he's clearly neglecting to look at arguments AGAINST flat Earth, which is necessary to make an educated decision.  If you only look at one side of the argument you can't make an informed decision, in fact propaganda works by ignoring the opposing side and that's why it's so persuasive. 

He could do that simply by running his pro flat earth arguments past me, I have a fair bit of experience debunking flat Earth "proofs".

Clearly, you are clarvoyant and can read his mind, seeing as you know what he is thinking without him having to actually say it. 

They don't understand what true "Critical Thinking" is. Their view of critical thinking, which they've been taught, is acquiescence, compliance, complaisance, commonality, DOCILE CONFORMITY.

They're not taught to question, they're taught not to question, they're taught to conform to the collective. They're robots. And they don't even realize their freewill has been stolen.

When you taught to conform to the collective, do you mean only using science that is demonstrably and repeatably correct?

Do you conform to the doctrin that 2+2=4, or are you a free thinker that puts forward that 2+2=5214?

I'm 45 years old.

I have been viewing evidence for a spherical earth for 45 years.

I have been studying the modern scientific view for just about as long.

I don't need to examine the evidence for a round earth, because I've already done it my whole life... I would only be RE-examining what's already written in textbooks. There's nothing you can tell me that I haven't already considered, or that I'm not smart enough to figure out without you holding my hand.

The only thing I HAVEN'T examined/studied, is any view other than the global earth model.

And the sheer amount of trolls on [this site], claiming to be FOR flat earth believers, puts up very clear red flags... someone doesn't want anyone digging for information on the subject. Someone doesn't want anyone to investigate and examine ALL the evidence. In a legal proceeding, all evidence for both sides must be examined, no matter how small. If evidence is ignored, then we as individuals can see that the court is rigged... And the people here are telling me not to consider all the evidence (and where o' where are the flat-earthers coming to my side to aid me? ...they aren't on this site, and that is clearly evident) ... (And before anyone tells me "yes you can make investigation, but in a court the evidence must also be cross-examined" ...yes this is true, and for that we have scientific textbooks... and again, I don't need YOU to hold my hand—are you a scientists that you should school me on science? or will you not run to the textbooks for answers. Aren't your scientists and the writers of your textbooks sufficient? Yes, they are, so shut up and leave [us] alone as we make examination ...but YOU are trying to hinder examination itself).



"When anyone is replying to a matter before he hears it, that is foolishness on his part and a humiliation."—Prov. 18:13



—Rx

I don’t know your intentions; but I don’t like people who give me no options - “DO THIS! or else it will be done with or without your permission.”

My failure to put a circa symbol © on everything I write doesn't make my works non copyrighted. By law, the moment I put the idea in readable form, it's copyrighted. It wouldn't matter if I had written it on a napkin. Even if a work is not officially registered, it can be defended upon proof of ownership (a copy of a web page with a time-date stamp is proof).

I officially give no one here permission to copy my works in whole or in part. If a moderator wants to move the entire subject, so be it.

Please note that your avatar uses an image from Michel Granger:

http://www.granger-michel.com/project/disque-jean-michel-jarre-cover4/
As you seem very sensitive to copyrighted material, you should apply the same standards to other people's work.

Quote from: Orbisect-64 on June 24, 2015, 05:42:55 PM

I don’t know your intentions; but I don’t like people who give me no options - “DO THIS! or else it will be done with or without your permission.”

My failure to put a circa symbol © on everything I write doesn't make my works non copyrighted. By law, the moment I put the idea in readable form, it's copyrighted. It wouldn't matter if I had written it on a napkin. Even if a work is not officially registered, it can be defended upon proof of ownership (a copy of a web page with a time-date stamp is proof).

I officially give no one here permission to copy my works in whole or in part. If a moderator wants to move the entire subject, so be it.

Please note that your avatar uses an image from Michel Granger:

http://www.granger-michel.com/project/disque-jean-michel-jarre-cover4/
As you seem very sensitive to copyrighted material, you should apply the same standards to other people's work.

Sue me

There's nothing you can tell me that I haven't already considered, or that I'm not smart enough to figure out without you holding my hand.

Let's test that theory.

I have studied the flat Earth model too, it's kind of hard no to do on this forum.  I have come to the conclusion that it's false, and the reasons why are countless.

First of all, look at the links in my signature which lead to a video proving that Earth is round and an experiment I did which proved that Earth is round.  There are also things like sunsets which can't be explained on a flat Earth, " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">pole stars don't work on a flat Earth, faking even just the Apollo missions would take at least 1,000,000 people and that's a conservative estimate, flight times don't make sense on a flat Earth especially on a southern hemisphere, everyone sees the Moon from the same angle no matter where they are on Earth so the Moon can't be as close as flat earthers say, at the same time the Moon can only be seen from half of the world so the only explanation is that the Earth is round, ships appear to disappear below the horizon as they get further away which is only possible on a round Earth, I can't see the Sun at night even though flat Earth theory says that it should be above the horizon, stars have a constant angular distance and a constant size from everywhere on Earth which wouldn't make sense if they were really close, and I could go on but I have things to do.

Quote from: Orbisect-64 on June 26, 2015, 06:56:23 AM

There's nothing you can tell me that I haven't already considered, or that I'm not smart enough to figure out without you holding my hand.

Let's test that theory.

I have studied the flat Earth model too, it's kind of hard no to do on this forum.  I have come to the conclusion that it's false, and the reasons why are countless.

First of all, look at the links in my signature which lead to a video proving that Earth is round and an experiment I did which proved that Earth is round.  There are also things like sunsets which can't be explained on a flat Earth, " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">pole stars don't work on a flat Earth, faking even just the Apollo missions would take at least 1,000,000 people and that's a conservative estimate, flight times don't make sense on a flat Earth especially on a southern hemisphere, everyone sees the Moon from the same angle no matter where they are on Earth so the Moon can't be as close as flat earthers say, at the same time the Moon can only be seen from half of the world so the only explanation is that the Earth is round, ships appear to disappear below the horizon as they get further away which is only possible on a round Earth, I can't see the Sun at night even though flat Earth theory says that it should be above the horizon, stars have a constant angular distance and a constant size from everywhere on Earth which wouldn't make sense if they were really close, and I could go on but I have things to do.

you have nothing to do but bullshiting here in the forum you are unemployed little liar your whole life is this forum and debunking flat earth.
you are in flat earth forum try to think about how to settle your problems with flat earth not how to say the world is round, why you don't do it you little hero ? because the agenda preventing you to do this, you want the earth to be round, your sick clumsy god knows why.

try explain flat earth and settle your problems with flat earth and then you have place here otherwise go to your friends in geometry forums.

your whole life is this forum and debunking flat earth.

Then how do you explain the >90% of my time that I spend not on this forum?

Quote from: modestman on June 27, 2015, 12:36:03 PM

your whole life is this forum and debunking flat earth.

Then how do you explain the >90% of my time that I spend not on this forum?

Wow when ? even in your facebook the only photo aside the fake photo of yours is the globe.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on June 27, 2015, 12:39:09 PM

Quote from: modestman on June 27, 2015, 12:36:03 PM

your whole life is this forum and debunking flat earth.

Then how do you explain the >90% of my time that I spend not on this forum?

Wow when ? even in your facebook the only photo aside the fake photo of yours is the globe.

That's a fake image of a globe I made in Blender.  I have more images there if you cared to look most of them are more things I have done on Blender.  You could also look at the hundreds of photos I am tagged in, but again, you are either too lazy to look or you are so bent on thinking that I am a bot that you don't want to believe anything different.

This isnt about the question asked but in reply to the first set of awnsers the writer of this forum replied "B. This isn't the truman show"
This doesnt have much proof to back it up but i have this hypothesis (im not set on it, infact i have many) that the whole planet is the bottom of a giant cage built by an alien race as an
"experiment" a bit like the truman show but for science not entertainment
I hypothesise that this race is trying to study evolving creatures on the plane of earth and after a certain amount of time they reset the experiment eg; extinction of dinosaurs and the great flood as depicted in the story of "noah." i also therorise that the stories of this alien race have been diluted and altered  until now where they are called 'gods' And have sparked religions
(note: this is NOT trying to tell people who belive in a god that it is all false and is wrong, i have nothing against religion, it is just plainly a hypothesis).

Also that it seems odd that if you dig down it becomes unbearably hot and if you walk outwards it becomes unbearibly cold, seems to me like some kind of boundaries. But up?

anyway thanks for reading and please reply sensibly
Im fully aware that i have next to no proof and that i could be completely wrong but as i said;
its just a hypothesis.

Does reality even exsist if nobody's around to perceive it? If someone or something happened to create our world, that would mean they have technology far beyond our understanding of science. Our reality takes place in our head as an interpretation of signals for the outside world. I recommend taking some DMT and simply asking for an answer. You may just find an elf who's willing to talk lol.

I don’t know your intentions; but I don’t like people who give me no options - “DO THIS! or else it will be done with or without your permission.”

My failure to put a circa symbol © on everything I write doesn't make my works non copyrighted. By law, the moment I put the idea in readable form, it's copyrighted. It wouldn't matter if I had written it on a napkin. Even if a work is not officially registered, it can be defended upon proof of ownership (a copy of a web page with a time-date stamp is proof).

I officially give no one here permission to copy my works in whole or in part. If a moderator wants to move the entire subject, so be it.

What the heck did I just read? Is this guy pretending that his ..."work" is something important and that he "figure it out" , where other scientists have failed?
45 years old you said? Wow ! How is life in the cave you are living .. these days?

A very good question, indeed.

“The astronomers' theory of a globular Earth necessitates the conclusion that, if we travel south of the equator, to see the North Star is an impossibility. Yet it is well known this star has been seen by navigators when they have been more than 20 degrees south of the equator. This fact, like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory to shame, and gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe”



"For instance, Ursa Major, very close to Polaris, can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude (the North Pole) all the way down to 30 degrees South latitude. The constellation Vulpecula can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude, all the way to 55 degrees South latitude. Taurus, Pisces and Leo can be seen from 90 degrees North all the way to 65 degrees South. Aquarius and Libra can be seen from 65 degrees North to 90 degrees South! The constellation Virgo is visible from 80 degrees North down to 80 degrees South, and Orion can be seen from 85 degrees North all the way to 75 degrees South latitude! An observer on a ball-Earth, regardless of any tilt or inclination, should not logically be able to see this far."



Please refer to my work done on the Tunguska explosion, seen all the way from London, Antwerp, Berlin, Stockholm, instantaneously...

The polaris isn't exactly over the north pole, and if you are on the ocean you can "see over the edge" on a globe earth, and the light is somewhat deflected because of the atmosphere (the further south you are the more air the light from polaris has to travel through, increasing the deflection of the light.