Does anyone here accept they could be wrong.

Is it possible to get anyone on this site to change what theory they believe. As everyone probably thinks they are right, is there any point to the debates. Probably not.

Jroa used to think the Earth was round. Then he fell into the unfortunate hellhole that is FET. Now he thinks he's always right and never wrong.

The short answer is no, not really.

Nice double-shitpost.

You could've just edited your first post, yet you didn't...

Now why would that be, I wonder?

(lol - forum slide creation!)

Why are you not banned?

Jroa used to think the Earth was round. Then he fell into the unfortunate hellhole that is FET. Now he thinks he's always right and never wrong.

He also has troubles making claims. It's like he lives to "seed doubt" but never actually coming up with anything that explains anything.

It's easier to plant the seeds of doubt than answering them, sure. But he truly cannot expect people with scientific formation and access to scientific material to just believe all this FE nonsense. Even weaker minds won't believe these dumb ad hoc explanations FE makes simply by being told some elaborate nonsense or by being pointed supposed contradictions on physics.

Jroa tries to attack RE without being able to give anything in return. It's like he's talking like this: "Hey! RE Believers! NASA and the Gov are probably lying to you, but I cannot explain any shit with the theory I believe, so why don't you believe the Earth is flat so we can finally form a softball team with FE believers? We're short on people!"

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 22, 2015, 03:21:25 PM

Jroa used to think the Earth was round. Then he fell into the unfortunate hellhole that is FET. Now he thinks he's always right and never wrong.

He also has troubles making claims. It's like he lives to "seed doubt" but never actually coming up with anything that explains anything.

It's easier to plant the seeds of doubt than answering them, sure. But he truly cannot expect people with scientific formation and access to scientific material to just believe all this FE nonsense. Even weaker minds won't believe these dumb ad hoc explanations FE makes simply by being told some elaborate nonsense or by being pointed supposed contradictions on physics.

Jroa tries to attack RE without being able to give anything in return. It's like he's talking like this: "Hey! RE Believers! NASA and the Gov are probably lying to you, but I cannot explain any shit with the theory I believe, so why don't you believe the Earth is flat so we can finally form a softball team with FE believers? We're short on people!"

Why are you ragging on Jroa? He has his opinions and it wouldn't be much of a fun forum if this site didn't have people like Jroa on here to offer other opinions. You REers only regurgitate what you were taught and in school and you can find tons of information to back up your claims. On the other hand, people like Jroa has to question things because they are not the type to just simply roll over and say what the masters tell them to say. There are tons of people like Jroa out there who have other thoughts and opinions, but are too shy to say them because they don't want to stir the pot. They simply take the easy road and go along with the status quo.

Jroa and TheEngineer argue dishonestly and overly aggressive, but at least they argue ...

I prefer them over Papa Legba's childish provocations, JRoweSkeptic's angry selfishness or Heiwa's confused condescension every time ...

Why are you ragging on Jroa? He has his opinions and it wouldn't be much of a fun forum if this site didn't have people like Jroa on here to offer other opinions.

We'er clearly not talking about the same person. Jroa never shows any opinions, only tries to cast doubt on RE beliefs (but not FE beliefs). He never proposed anything, and never backed up any claim, simply because he can't make any.

You REers only regurgitate what you were taught and in school and you can find tons of information to back up your claims.

Yeah... It would be better if we never set foot in school and kept talking things without minimal knowledge, right? 

On the other hand, people like Jroa has to question things because they are not the type to just simply roll over and say what the masters tell them to say. There are tons of people like Jroa out there who have other thoughts and opinions, but are too shy to say them because they don't want to stir the pot. They simply take the easy road and go along with the status quo.

The easy road here is what he chose: To question without any knowledge and/or evidence. Why question something you don't have a clue about? 

Accept it, yes: assume it, no.

Most REers seem to rely on their confidence in their model and subsequent arrogance in lieu of any honest argument. I may lose my temper, but at least I have answers. Of course, they don't mean anything if you're simply going to ignore them.

I personally think FE can't be true because of contradictions, but I will change my mind about RE being right if I am shown evidence that the earth can't be round.
Question about DET, is it falsifiable.

I personally think FE can't be true because of contradictions, but I will change my mind about RE being right if I am shown evidence that the earth can't be round.
Question about DET, is it falsifiable.

There aren't anywhere near as many contradictions as you think, REers just rarely stop using an argument.
DEt is certainly falsifiable, even if it has not been falsified.

I personally think FE can't be true because of contradictions, but I will change my mind about RE being right if I am shown evidence that the earth can't be round.
Question about DET, is it falsifiable.

DEF - yes. See the "Amateur Astronomy - Equatorial Alignment". Aligning equatorially mounted telescopes is a falsifiable test that has FALSIFIED all Flat Earth models (including DEF). BTW, FYI, I refer to it as Dual Earth Fantasy (DEF). It is no where remotely a theory. It is not even a hypothesis. See "How do stars stay together/form on a flat earth?" reply #18.

Jroa and TheEngineer argue dishonestly and overly aggressive, but at least they argue ...

I prefer them over Papa Legba's childish provocations, JRoweSkeptic's angry selfishness or Heiwa's confused condescension every time ...

I read nearly every post on here and I don't think Jroa really tries to be dishonest. He is trying to bring out what he believes and does a great job of explaining the other side of a discussion. Most everything REes try and prove can be explained a different way that makes a lot of sense. It is just that you believe what you were taught and nothing will convince you otherwise. Jroa is different, Like myself he sees a lot of things that don't necessarily line up with conventional thinking and beliefs and he is not afraid of expressing it. This has happened to him enough times that he seems totally convinced things are not as they want us to believe. I can almost say the same thing, but I'm not quite as convinced as Jroa. Maybe I will be someday or I may flip back the other way, who knows.

Quote from: EternalHoid on November 23, 2015, 08:31:24 AM

I personally think FE can't be true because of contradictions, but I will change my mind about RE being right if I am shown evidence that the earth can't be round.
Question about DET, is it falsifiable.

DEF - yes. See the "Amateur Astronomy - Equatorial Alignment". Aligning equatorially mounted telescopes is a falsifiable test that has FALSIFIED all Flat Earth models (including DEF). BTW, FYI, I refer to it as Dual Earth Fantasy (DEF). It is no where remotely a theory. It is not even a hypothesis. See "How do stars stay together/form on a flat earth?" reply #18.

Please note that Jadyyn is still debating this argument, and has been incapable of responding to anything I've said over several pages, and yet he insist on posting this argument over multiple threads like it's some kind of cut-and-dried victory: and he does so without linking. Sure, he references a thread, but no one ever checks like that. If he linked, you'd see that he's been constantly evading a simple question for multiple plages, and you'd have to make up your own mind, rather than simply doing what he says.
Plus he feels the need to spam multiple threads, often with the exact same post. It's very tedious to have any kind of discussion with someone so arrogant.

I'm willing to change my mind. That's why I'm here. But the more time I spend here, the more convinced I am that the earth is round.

Quote from: Soulblood on November 23, 2015, 06:48:31 AM

Jroa and TheEngineer argue dishonestly and overly aggressive, but at least they argue ...

I prefer them over Papa Legba's childish provocations, JRoweSkeptic's angry selfishness or Heiwa's confused condescension every time ...

I read nearly every post on here and I don't think Jroa really tries to be dishonest.

I would not call that dishonesty, but incapacity. Jroa and the engineer both show no evidence for their claims. All they can do is try - and fail at - seeding doubt on the weaker minds. They seem much more interested in spreading misinformation than providing a flat earth explanation that could be a little scientific (They CANNOT do this, since science already knows the Earth is round).

Quote from: Yendor on November 23, 2015, 09:46:57 AM

Quote from: Soulblood on November 23, 2015, 06:48:31 AM

Jroa and TheEngineer argue dishonestly and overly aggressive, but at least they argue ...

I prefer them over Papa Legba's childish provocations, JRoweSkeptic's angry selfishness or Heiwa's confused condescension every time ...

I read nearly every post on here and I don't think Jroa really tries to be dishonest.

I would not call that dishonesty, but incapacity. Jroa and the engineer both show no evidence for their claims. All they can do is try - and fail at - seeding doubt on the weaker minds. They seem much more interested in spreading misinformation than providing a flat earth explanation that could be a little scientific (They CANNOT do this, since science already knows the Earth is round).

But kirk, you can't know that for sure unless you have been on the outside looking in. Only a few people have done that and I find it hard to believe you are one of them. So, you simply take their word for it as if it was a religion.

But kirk, you can't know that for sure unless you have been on the outside looking in. Only a few people have done that and I find it hard to believe you are one of them. So, you simply take their word for it as if it was a religion.

You seem to be a disciple to jroa. Employing the same "tactics" as him. 

Of course I know for sure. The moon must be a body with mass and opacity. Otherwise, there would be no eclipses. See? I don't need to believe some guy that landed on the moon and even took back photografic evidence with him.

See? You tried to cast a shadow of doubt on my position, and now everyone just knows it is perfectly logical and true.

The moon is a physical body, no matter what you say.

Quote from: Yendor on November 23, 2015, 02:50:14 PM

But kirk, you can't know that for sure unless you have been on the outside looking in. Only a few people have done that and I find it hard to believe you are one of them. So, you simply take their word for it as if it was a religion.

You seem to be a disciple to jroa. Employing the same "tactics" as him. 

Of course I know for sure. The moon must be a body with mass and opacity. Otherwise, there would be no eclipses. See? I don't need to believe some guy that landed on the moon and even took back photografic evidence with him.

See? You tried to cast a shadow of doubt on my position, and now everyone just knows it is perfectly logical and true.

The moon is a physical body, no matter what you say.

I'm not a disciple of Jroa, I'm just someone who tries to see if there is another side to an issue and if there is, can it make more sense to me. You used the eclipses to prove, in your mind, that the Earth is a globe. Well, to me  when the Moon is full and the Earth passes directly between the Sun and the Moon, the Earth’s shadow shows up on the Moon’s surface as being curved. It doesn't mean to me that it is necessarily ball shaped, it could possibly be shaped like a disc. To me that is perfectly logical if we live on a flat Earth. I admit that there are things that I can't explain on a flat Earth, maybe I never will. But to me it is fun investigating.

I'm not a disciple of Jroa, I'm just someone who tries to see if there is another side to an issue and if there is, can it make more sense to me. You used the eclipses to prove, in your mind, that the Earth is a globe. Well, to me  when the Moon is full and the Earth passes directly between the Sun and the Moon, the Earth’s shadow shows up on the Moon’s surface as being curved. It doesn't mean to me that it is necessarily ball shaped, it could possibly be shaped like a disc. To me that is perfectly logical if we live on a flat Earth. I admit that there are things that I can't explain on a flat Earth, maybe I never will. But to me it is fun investigating.

The moon is not a disc. It's round, the phases alone confirm this. Have your "fun" investigating something else 

Quote from: Yendor on November 24, 2015, 08:36:34 AM

I'm not a disciple of Jroa, I'm just someone who tries to see if there is another side to an issue and if there is, can it make more sense to me. You used the eclipses to prove, in your mind, that the Earth is a globe. Well, to me  when the Moon is full and the Earth passes directly between the Sun and the Moon, the Earth’s shadow shows up on the Moon’s surface as being curved. It doesn't mean to me that it is necessarily ball shaped, it could possibly be shaped like a disc. To me that is perfectly logical if we live on a flat Earth. I admit that there are things that I can't explain on a flat Earth, maybe I never will. But to me it is fun investigating.

The moon is not a disc. It's round, the phases alone confirm this. Have your "fun" investigating something else 

You can't tell me that the Moon doesn't look like a disc. Have you seen all the way around it and how does it illuminate?

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 23, 2015, 09:45:00 AM

Quote from: EternalHoid on November 23, 2015, 08:31:24 AM

I personally think FE can't be true because of contradictions, but I will change my mind about RE being right if I am shown evidence that the earth can't be round.
Question about DET, is it falsifiable.

DEF - yes. See the "Amateur Astronomy - Equatorial Alignment". Aligning equatorially mounted telescopes is a falsifiable test that has FALSIFIED all Flat Earth models (including DEF). BTW, FYI, I refer to it as Dual Earth Fantasy (DEF). It is no where remotely a theory. It is not even a hypothesis. See "How do stars stay together/form on a flat earth?" reply #18.

Please note that Jadyyn is still debating this argument, and has been incapable of responding to anything I've said over several pages, and yet he insist on posting this argument over multiple threads like it's some kind of cut-and-dried victory: and he does so without linking. Sure, he references a thread, but no one ever checks like that. If he linked, you'd see that he's been constantly evading a simple question for multiple plages, and you'd have to make up your own mind, rather than simply doing what he says.
Plus he feels the need to spam multiple threads, often with the exact same post. It's very tedious to have any kind of discussion with someone so arrogant.

It is funny. When I link my threads, I am accused of spamming or pushing my threads. Now, I am not linking. I can't win.

As far as the argument, it disproves ALL Flat models. JRoweSkeptic does not understand REAL amateur astronomy requirements, the physics of rotating things, and the differences between spherical and flat surfaces. When given examples, he ignores what REAL astronomers do and dreams up explanations (altitude of stars), with no specifics of course, to explain what he does not understand.

Yes, please look at what needs to happen as explained multiple ways, with links and diagrams. Then, IF you can find his responses, see what BS he as come up with. Since he does not even know where an observer is or the height of the N. Celestial Pole in DEF, he can not determine an angle. Yet, he says he knows DEF can align a telescope! Total BS. Check it out (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64697.0#.VlSeB3arSUk)

It is funny. When I link my threads, I am accused of spamming or pushing my threads. Now, I am not linking. I can't win.

You can win if you'd do something as unthinkable as staying on topic rather than whinging like a terrified child.

Yes, please look at what needs to happen as explained multiple ways, with links and diagrams.

Rather, find what needs to happen under the RE model, without even an attempt to address any alternative.

Since he does not even know where an observer is or the height of the N. Celestial Pole in DEF, he can not determine an angle. Yet, he says he knows DEF can align a telescope!

And observe that Jadyyn believes the default position should be to reject a model, which makes his attempt to falsify pretty pointless. Either we should reject anything beyond RET because he says so, or there is a valid argument to do so: in which case Jadyyn needs to show impossibility, and by contraposition, to refute that I need only show possibility.
No understanding of even the basics of logic.

Quote

Yes, please look at what needs to happen as explained multiple ways, with links and diagrams.

Rather, find what needs to happen under the RE model, without even an attempt to address any alternative.

I present the REQUIREMENTS of aligning telescopes - that you do not understand. These are not RET things but telescope things. RET fulfills these requirements and actually, the requirements PROVE RET. You do not present alternatives that fulfill the requirements. Just random alternatives that can not align a telescope! When asked for specifics to test against what astronomers actually do, the alternatives you suggest can not provide any - but you state with authority they can and do! Total 100% BS.

As I asked, if you don't know where an observer is on your model nor the height of the NCP, how can you determine an angle? How can you assert/claim the angle matches what astronomers do? How can you say DEF works? How can you say you refuted aligning telescopes? These you keep asserting/claiming in other threads when I bring up this disproof.

Quote

Since he does not even know where an observer is or the height of the N. Celestial Pole in DEF, he can not determine an angle. Yet, he says he knows DEF can align a telescope!

And observe that Jadyyn believes the default position should be to reject a model, which makes his attempt to falsify pretty pointless. Either we should reject anything beyond RET because he says so, or there is a valid argument to do so: in which case Jadyyn needs to show impossibility, and by contraposition, to refute that I need only show possibility.
No understanding of even the basics of logic.

Um... that is what falsifiable tests do. If the test is falsified, the model is a FANTASY. Duh...

No, (1) you don't only need to show possibility. ALL things are possible in a FANTASY. I totally 100% agree EVERYTHING in DEF is POSSIBLE!!! It is a FANTASY. You do not need to show ANYTHING. (2) If you want DEF to be more than a FANTASY, you need to show it matches REALITY. Demonstrate the required ANGLES. Provide REAL evidence.

Even IF another model works (definitely HE and possibly CE - it is not impossible - I admit it) aligning telescopes, so what? It has nothing to do with DEF. DEF remains a FANTASY. We are not here to prove Hollow Earth or Concave Earth theories. Congratulations! You win! Other models can align telescopes! They are not FLAT! WOW! ... but ... ALL FE models (including DEF) remain FANTASIES because they are FLAT! What have you won?

To bring this back on topic:

If I was ever wrong, I would accept it.  However, I'm never wrong. 

Unless you ask my wife.

Would any of you confirm the existence of Manned space travel and NASA being authentic if you personally observed the ISS with say an 8 inch telescope?? or something similar.  I know you need first hand sensory evidence to believe something.  i am just wondering if this would fit the requirements to form a belief??

No, (1) you don't only need to show possibility. ALL things are possible in a FANTASY. I totally 100% agree EVERYTHING in DEF is POSSIBLE!!! It is a FANTASY. You do not need to show ANYTHING. (2) If you want DEF to be more than a FANTASY, you need to show it matches REALITY. Demonstrate the required ANGLES. Provide REAL evidence.

And here's your dishonesty plain as day. All I need to do is demonstrate possibility: which I have done. Therefore, you haven't falsified a damn thing. Do you understand anything?!
To demonstrate DET matches reality, there's more than this alignment argument you have a hard-on over. All your argument boils down to is the fact I have limited resources, which I have never denied. Try to be honest for once.

Jadyyn, from what I have read DET seems to predict that astronomy works exactly the same as in RE, the reason is probably that the ather distorts or creates the stars and their movement.

About falseablity and predictions, are there any experiments that should give different results in DET or RE. Because the predictions of DET seem to match RET, if they perfectly match then they kind of become the same theory, because the main part of a theory is its predictions.

Quote from: Kirk Johnson on November 24, 2015, 08:57:48 AM

Quote from: Yendor on November 24, 2015, 08:36:34 AM

I'm not a disciple of Jroa, I'm just someone who tries to see if there is another side to an issue and if there is, can it make more sense to me. You used the eclipses to prove, in your mind, that the Earth is a globe. Well, to me  when the Moon is full and the Earth passes directly between the Sun and the Moon, the Earth’s shadow shows up on the Moon’s surface as being curved. It doesn't mean to me that it is necessarily ball shaped, it could possibly be shaped like a disc. To me that is perfectly logical if we live on a flat Earth. I admit that there are things that I can't explain on a flat Earth, maybe I never will. But to me it is fun investigating.

The moon is not a disc. It's round, the phases alone confirm this. Have your "fun" investigating something else 

You can't tell me that the Moon doesn't look like a disc. Have you seen all the way around it and how does it illuminate?

Yes, I have. It's a round object, not a perfect sphere though. It's quite spherical indeed.

To bring this back on topic:

If I was ever wrong, I would accept it.  However, I'm never wrong. 

Unless you ask my wife.

You're not wrong believing the earth is flat. You can always believe anything you want. However, if you claim that, then you're wrong.