what's left now?

so.. why do flat earthers still believe when the evidence has proven their 'proofs' wrong?

Very very simple question

really..?

the question is simple, why do people still believe in the flat earth theory when the 'proofs' have been disproven?

are you saying that anything on that list is still up for discussion?
I've not gone into the details as I've already done that on previous threads, with fully testable visual explanations

Quote from: Johnorbital on July 02, 2016, 03:40:32 PM

@boydster

my points are NOT from google

1. lunar eclipse - our shadow, it's round - the FE explanation for the lunar eclipse doesn't stand up to testing (absolute evidence of a globe earth)
2. landmarks from too far away - when looking at the Chicago skyline (for instance) from too far away, when the camera is put at ground level, the skyline is no longer visible (evidence of curve)
3. meteors - the mere fact they exist, and have been documented/photographed/collected by some non-government agents immediately disproves the dome (absolute evidence of no dome)
4. angular sun rays - when using perspective from different angles at the same time, the location of the sun is in different places (absolute evidence of a non-localised sun, disproving the flat earth model's location of the sun)
5. satellites and the ISS - visible with the naked eye and in detail with a telescope/binoculars (disproving their non-existence, in turn, absolute evidence they exist)

to name a few

I have explained my points, I don't talk about things I've not researched, hence me asking you basic gravity questions

I don't pretend I know things I don't

You came to a debate forum for the flat Earth, but did not want to have a discussion about anything, then get mad when nobody replies to you?  Are you being for real, or is this a joke? 

so.. why do flat earthers still believe when the evidence has proven their 'proofs' wrong?

Very very simple question

That is like asking, "Why is the sky blue if color does not exist?"  Don't worry, you are getting better at asking questions, you simply have not mastered it yet. 

so you're not going to answer?

- I've listed the explanations that you asked for
- I've asked one very simple question

I'm not sure why you're saying I don't want a discussion..
you simply won't reply on topic.. you're just repeating 'you don't make sense' over and over..

the explanations are clear, I'm happy to elaborate if you decide to actually have a discussion one day.. and the question is clear

you've either got an answer or you've not, you either know what you're talking about or you don't

am I going to get an answer or are you going to carry on BLATANTLY AVOIDING it?

@boydster
you're as bad as they are, simply making things up and ignoring replies

I didn't make anything up. You just don't understand the words, and you are very hostile towards everyone. You claim you proved something that you didn't. And you continue to try and back out of it without "proving" anything. I'm the one making things up?? I didn't come up with John's idea, and I didn't tell everyone I disproved it. Check the thread again, mon ami.

the example you gave me states a 'curved plane' right?
so upon testing, the lunar eclipse disproves it

if he's claiming its a sphere with a dome, then meteors disprove it

If it is, in fact, curved so much that it's spherical, then no. The lunar eclipse doesn't disprove it. Either model would look the same in that respect. You keep repeating your claim that has no merit. Like Papa on that damn physics thread.

And who said anything about a sphere with a dome? You just created a straw man there. Awesome debating skillz, bro.

simple, you're trying to convince yourself the earth is flat, so you've adopted cognitive dissonance

Dude, don't tell me what I'm trying to convince myself of. Just wow. I'll try what you're doing: You are projecting, you are so convinced of your own superiority that you have adopted cognitive dissonance that has prevented you from understanding what a non-Euclidean flat surface can look like, or how observers on said surface would perceive events that are far above the surface.

once again, no one has even attempted to answer any questions

I'd like to say I'm surprised, but I'm not

Once again, you lashed out and dodged and asserted you were right, but brought nothing to the table. I'd like to say I'm surprised, but history.

You came into this thread looking for a debate. You seem to either be upset that people responded to take a different side than you, or unwilling to actually engage in the debate you started the thread to have. Telling people they are wrong doesn't make it true. Telling people you have proven something doesn't make it true. And making a bunch of straw men to tear down doesn't make you a great debater. Your examples of why most flat earth models fail work for most flat earth models. But you've done a terrible job explaining away one in particular. And actually, your Chicago skyline argument can fail at times if weather conditions permit but that's an entirely different issue.

...I don't talk about things I've not researched, hence me asking you basic gravity questions

I don't pretend I know things I don't

Well. You said it, so it must be true.

again, my explanations were very clear, if you disagree, feel free to discuss my points

WHY DOESN'T the lunar disprove the whole theory
WHY DONT meteors disprove the dome
WHY DONT constellation positions disprove the whole theory
WHY DOESN'T the landmark explanation prove a curve
WHY DOESN'T my angular sun rays explanation work

just because you say I'm wrong, doesn't make it so

you say I've provided no evidence, but ever since I posted my THOROUGH EXPLANATIONS, no one has even attempted to discuss anything

you say I'm like your son, so how would you describe everyone in here (including yourself), who instead of answering very direct questions, just claim that I've got no evidence, totally ignoring the evidence and explanations I'm posting

you say I'm wrong and keep banging on about a NEW theory as if I should give it some merit, if it's a globe earth then it's correct, if it's a flat earth its wrong, if it's a flat sphere then it doesn't even make sense

but you won't elaborate, you're happy to cling on to 'John doesn't know something', well I know that my evidence stands up to testing, ALL OF IT
..While NONE of the flat earth 'evidence' stands up to testing

seriously, how am I supposed to take anyone seriously when all they do is avoid answering questions, they ignore my points completely, they call names and generally just try to wind me up

and you call ME a kid?

have you never heard of irony?

Finally, some actual question. 

WHY DOESN'T the lunar disprove the whole theory

Because lunar means the moon and nobody claims that the moon does does not exist. 

WHY DONT meteors disprove the dome

First of all, not all of us claim there is a dome.  Secondly, meteors do not disprove anything.

WHY DONT constellation positions disprove the whole theory

Constellations move throughout the year.  How does this prove the shape of the Earth?

WHY DOESN'T the landmark explanation prove a curve

What the F*** does this mean? 

WHY DOESN'T my angular sun rays explanation work

Angular rays have been proven to show that the sun is very close on many occasions. 

Perhaps you can now give another list of things that you can claim to have disproved, even though you have not? 

Finally, some actual question. 

Quote from: Johnorbital on July 12, 2016, 10:43:46 PM

WHY DOESN'T the lunar disprove the whole theory

Because lunar means the moon and nobody claims that the moon does does not exist. 

Quote from: Johnorbital on July 12, 2016, 10:43:46 PM

WHY DONT meteors disprove the dome

First of all, not all of us claim there is a dome.  Secondly, meteors do not disprove anything.

Quote from: Johnorbital on July 12, 2016, 10:43:46 PM

WHY DONT constellation positions disprove the whole theory

Constellations move throughout the year.  How does this prove the shape of the Earth?

Quote from: Johnorbital on July 12, 2016, 10:43:46 PM

WHY DOESN'T the landmark explanation prove a curve

What the F*** does this mean? 

Quote from: Johnorbital on July 12, 2016, 10:43:46 PM

WHY DOESN'T my angular sun rays explanation work

Angular rays have been proven to show that the sun is very close on many occasions. 

Perhaps you can now give another list of things that you can claim to have disproved, even though you have not?

firstly, I've explained these points in my only other thread thoroughly

I'll go again though

1. lunar eclipse - during a lunar eclipse, the shadow of the earth is shown on the moon
the shape? round!
instantly dismissing anything regarding a flat earth (it doesn't happen at the same point in the sky every time, taking away the possibility of a disc)

2. if there was a glass dome (like 99% of flat earthers claim), then yes, the existence of meteors immediately disproves that
'fireworks thrown from planes' is the general consensus, but actually looking at what lands immediately disproves that too

3. constellations are further above the horizon in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere - again, you can't even see the north star from deep in the southern hemisphere
immediately proving that the further south you travel, the less you see of a northern sky, very basic,

that's also why there's no flat earthers deep in the southern hemisphere

4. landmarks from too far away, when the camera is put at ground level, the landmarks are no longer visible, PROVING A CURVATURE
again, manipulating tests doesn't stand up, do the test correctly, get genuine results

5. angular sun rays prove only that the sun is in fact a long way away

I'll explain very clearly AGAIN..

let's say you're on a beach, looking out to sea, and you see angular sun rays hitting the water..
now, if you stayed there, and a friend went out to sea on a boat, once YOU saw him PASS the shine that YOU see, from HIS perspective, he still hasn't reached the shine..
if he turned around and took a photo, no shine would be visible

this is due to BASIC perspective

if you and a friend stood together at the afore mentioned beach, with the angular sun rays hitting the sea..
then you both travelled along the beach in opposite directions..

1. why would the sun seem to follow you BOTH? Instead of staying localised as you claim?

2. if you both took a photo at the same time from where you travelled to, why does the sun look localised in different positions at the same time?

Man this is BASIC perspective, how in the world can you not understand?
do you think rainbows are localised too? Or do you think people simply see them from THEIR perspective?

THAT'S why I call it absolute evidence

because it works upon testing, flat earth 'proofs' FAIL on testing

that's what research and testing gives you.. absolutely genuine irrefutable evidence

1.  Round is a 2 dimensional shape.  A sphere is 3 dimensional. 

2.  Very few people claim there is a dome.  Why don't you actually read what people say? 

3.  You have a very sick and twisted idea of what a constellation is.  Have you ever even tried to look at one?  No, just no. 

4.  Sounds like you are finally starting to discover perspective.  Keep up the learning. 

5.  Angular sun rays have proven, on many occasions, that the sun is very close.  Your scientists hand wave this off.  Care to try again with some real science, or are you just going to make another list of baseless statements that you claim have already been disproved?  You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you? 

5.  Angular sun rays have proven, on many occasions, that the sun is very close.  Your scientists hand wave this off.  Care to try again with some real science, or are you just going to make another list of baseless statements that you claim have already been disproved?  You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?

This just proves that you don't understand perspective. Move towards a set of angular Ray's and they proves precisely the opposite; that the sun is very far away.

1.  Round is a 2 dimensional shape.  A sphere is 3 dimensional. 

2.  Very few people claim there is a dome.  Why don't you actually read what people say? 

3.  You have a very sick and twisted idea of what a constellation is.  Have you ever even tried to look at one?  No, just no. 

4.  Sounds like you are finally starting to discover perspective.  Keep up the learning. 

5.  Angular sun rays have proven, on many occasions, that the sun is very close.  Your scientists hand wave this off.  Care to try again with some real science, or are you just going to make another list of baseless statements that you claim have already been disproved?  You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?

are you kidding?
I've just given evidence and explanations, you've not even tried to explain anything

1. what shape would the SHADOW of a sphere be? a flat earth would not show a round shadow EVERY TIME! (as I EXPLAINED in my previous brackets)

2. Very few? well, we can agree to disagree on numbers, I'm guessing we can both agree there is no dome though.. again, the mere existence of meteors immediately disproves any possible dome

3. constellations are groups of stars near each other in space, they move together and from our perspective they make shapes, the ancients described them as following the sun, they show us the 'great ages', we're currently residing in the great age of Pisces, the next great age is in a few hundred years ('when you see the man with the pitcher of water, follow him into his house' - J Christ, when asked when the next passover will be
..also why moses got mad when he saw people worshipping a bull, signalling the end of the age of Taurus)

so, constellations in the sky are further above the horizon in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere because the southern hemisphere is further south

this simply wouldn't happen on a flat earth as we're all apparently on a flat plane.. therefore proving there's a 'closer' and 'further away' from those constellations, again, not what the flat earth theory dictates

4. perspective isn't difficult to understand..
someone claiming that angular sun rays prove a localised sun AND claiming they understand perspective on the other hand, IS difficult to understand

5. so in what possible way was the sun proven to be much closer than what we're told, you said there's proof but for some strange reason you didn't present any


you call me not very sharp but then make me explain that in a way so that even a child could understand.. why would I use science when you don't even understand the basics

you don't need maths and formulas, you can disprove a flat earth with your eyes

ok do have you any answers? I've elaborated on every point, I'm now hoping to get an intelligent response instead of empty comments with no backup

or is it going to be the usual, divert, avoid, belittle, divert, avoid, belittle

 

..or simply ignore, as the case clearly is

1.  Round is a 2 dimensional shape.  A sphere is 3 dimensional. 

2.  Very few people claim there is a dome.  Why don't you actually read what people say? 

3.  You have a very sick and twisted idea of what a constellation is.  Have you ever even tried to look at one?  No, just no. 

4.  Sounds like you are finally starting to discover perspective.  Keep up the learning. 

5.  Angular sun rays have proven, on many occasions, that the sun is very close.  Your scientists hand wave this off.  Care to try again with some real science, or are you just going to make another list of baseless statements that you claim have already been disproved?  You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?

How would you expect a "spherical" shadow to look??

Also, everyone, please stop calling them "angular sun rays". It took me quite a while to understand what you are talking about. They're called crepuscular rays.

FErs should really stop pretending crepuscular rays is an acceptable argument. Even if we accepted that crepuscular rays are not a phenomenon of mainly perspective and (on some rare cases) refraction, and that they look that way because the sun is really close, we're led to major paradoxes. The places where the rays hit (in most cases being just a few kilometers or even less apart) would be different time zones. Start thinking.

How would you expect a "spherical" shadow to look??

So, then, why do you people keep saying that the shape of a shadow tells you what the object's shape is that is casting it? 

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 14, 2016, 02:19:33 PM

How would you expect a "spherical" shadow to look??

So, then, why do you people keep saying that the shape of a shadow tells you what the object's shape is that is casting it?

Because from every angle, it shows the same shape

a non globe earth would show a non circular shape, at least from time to time

visual proof

1.  Round is a 2 dimensional shape.  A sphere is 3 dimensional. 

2.  Very few people claim there is a dome.  Why don't you actually read what people say? 

3.  You have a very sick and twisted idea of what a constellation is.  Have you ever even tried to look at one?  No, just no. 

4.  Sounds like you are finally starting to discover perspective.  Keep up the learning. 

5.  Angular sun rays have proven, on many occasions, that the sun is very close.  Your scientists hand wave this off.  Care to try again with some real science, or are you just going to make another list of baseless statements that you claim have already been disproved?  You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/round?s=t

Read up

Quote from: jroa on July 14, 2016, 02:34:45 PM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 14, 2016, 02:19:33 PM

How would you expect a "spherical" shadow to look??

So, then, why do you people keep saying that the shape of a shadow tells you what the object's shape is that is casting it?

Because from every angle, it shows the same shape

a non globe earth would show a non circular shape, at least from time to time

visual proof

Oh, so you were just making assumptions.  Good to know. 

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 14, 2016, 02:19:33 PM

How would you expect a "spherical" shadow to look??

So, then, why do you people keep saying that the shape of a shadow tells you what the object's shape is that is casting it?

The way you phrased it was as if you were saying that the shadow of a spherical object is not round.

Spherical objects produce round shadows all the time. Round objects produce shadows that are sometimes round, sometimes ellipses, depending on the angle of the light hitting them, but the shadow on the moon is always round.

Quote from: Johnorbital on July 14, 2016, 03:07:06 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 14, 2016, 02:34:45 PM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 14, 2016, 02:19:33 PM

How would you expect a "spherical" shadow to look??

So, then, why do you people keep saying that the shape of a shadow tells you what the object's shape is that is casting it?

Because from every angle, it shows the same shape

a non globe earth would show a non circular shape, at least from time to time

visual proof

Oh, so you were just making assumptions.  Good to know.

no, no assumptions whatsoever, it's called visual evidence

I'm interested to hear how you'd challenge it (not that you'll even try, you'll just say a few words with absolutely no backup whatsoever, as usual)

if you're saying I'm wrong, at least try to tell me why

I've presented clear visual testable irrefutable proof, you've presented no argument

really funny how no one ever actually brings anything substantial to the table

just vague guesses and insults

then there's me, with evidence that you can test yourself, real world tests, that work..
..and you guys say I've got nothing

well no one's proved a single thing I've said wrong yet

I'm still waiting for an intelligent debate

If only the world had known Johnorbital sooner, so much time and energy could have been saved. You are a sage and humble warrior for truth, justice, and the pursuit of greater knowledge. Thank you, sir, for joining these fine message boards to tactfully and gracefully express your truths.

Quote from: Johnorbital on July 02, 2016, 10:17:37 AM

my question is, as those points above can no long be used, what's left for the FE to use as evidence?

I like turtles. Someone once said that under the Earth, it's just turtles all the way down. Since I like them a lot, I think the statement is rather attractive. But it may or may not be true. Also, this:



Now, to get to the heart of your question, I think JD's non-Euclidean flat surface remains to be disproven. AND, like your evidence that you have, it's not in your list. Maybe you could just assert that it's wrong though and everything will be better?

FWIW though, I bet it's wrong. I like turtles.

JD's non euclidean surface isn't even stated clearly enough to be disproven.

At least that argument against it makes sense.

At least that argument against it makes sense.

Honestly, here in the debate sections, JD acts all rational and cool, and meanwhile, in the FE general and FE believers forums he argues that sunlight is sun's defense against predators or something and this: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=5562;area=showposts;start=180

Quote from: Johnorbital on July 16, 2016, 12:21:26 PM

If only the world had known Johnorbital sooner, so much time and energy could have been saved. You are a sage and humble warrior for truth, justice, and the pursuit of greater knowledge. Thank you, sir, for joining these fine message boards to tactfully and gracefully express your truths.

pot.. kettle..

you yourself have the biggest ego in this place, full of condescension but absolutely no substance

your answer to my question was simply another question

I answered yours, you've still not proven anything I've said wrong

all you've done is 'SAID', that I've got nothing, you've not PROVEN anything, you've simply SAID it

..then followed me round telling me that I'm doing that.. I ALWAYS give explanations that people can test themselves

you 'just say' things

you're making yourself look silly, you don't need my help.. claiming to not believe in a flat earth? but you clearly WANT to

you've got no backup for your claims, unlike me

Are you asking boydster to prove you didn't prove something?

JO, I didn't set out in this thread to prove anything. I'm not sure what you are attacking me for not proving. I'm certainly not going to go to great efforts to disprove a round Earth - is that what you are asking me to do? That's silly. I simply pointed out an instance of a FE idea that agrees with the narrow field of tests you set forth. And, in what I can only say has been an astounding parade of arrogance, you asserted over and over that you disproved something that you really didn't, and you didn't listen to the reason why your disproof was incomplete. Now, had you been reading along in your own thread, you would have noticed Jadyyn provided a pretty good rebuttal to the idea. DNO was even a little more succint but gave a decent reason for dismissing the idea as it stands presently. But instead you've just doubled (tripled? quadrupled?) down on your original statement about lunar eclipses.

To be clear: I'm NOT going to try and disprove a globe Earth, and I'm NOT going to just agree with you when you start blindly lashing out at a community for no good reason other than you disagree with the people that make up the community. Don't be a meanie. 

my question is, as those points above can no long be used, what's left for the FE to use as evidence?

Perhaps nothing.  Does that threaten you? 






Message to honest folks: 
You do not need to provide evidence to anybody for anything you choose to believe. 

Are you asking boydster to prove you didn't prove something?

Next he'll be asking him to divide by zero and bring about the penguin apocalypse.