what's left now?

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 17, 2016, 04:08:48 AM

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.

Kremnotts, AdamSK! Good question. One I can't fairly answer, but I think Universal Acceleration and Dome are acceptable. Welcome to the xoxoff.

spacecowgirl is clearly a 10-14yo kid, her responses are just childish, she doesn't even attempt to elaborate further than 'look out the window'

What flat Earth model is being discussed now, and whom can I talk to with questions about it?

even your created model doesn't work

1. explain how it doesn't affect the smoke but does affect a ball

2. I've thoroughly explained the sun rays, they ONLY work on a globe model (see my explanation above your post)

3. the shadow object WOULD dim lights of other stars as it passes in front of them (stars are suns remember), end of story

4. I'll leave your meteor theory alone as you admit you created it to fit

I would prefer evidence with claims, I never just guess, I don't appreciate people doing the same

thanks for your reply, but as you see, under practical and visual testing, most of the flat earth proofs simply don't work

thanks

• You put those words in your mouth. Not me. STFU with your angry words when faced with it.
• Your smoke comment in your first thread was explained, in reply #7 you said it was an off-the-cuff remark but then on comment 11 you came back with a vengeance saying "I don't normally discuss gravity but the travelling upwards theory doesn't work due to it having enough force to put a ball back down but not enough to move smoke, smoke is lighter than a ball, therefore WOULD be affected also." But you only post things you've researched and have irrefutable evidence for. Except when you don't, apparently.

Quote from: boydster on July 17, 2016, 12:05:06 PM

Kremnotts, AdamSK! Good question. One I can't fairly answer, but I think Universal Acceleration and Dome are acceptable. Welcome to the xoxoff.

Do you mean that you understand the UA and Dome models well enough to discuss observational discrepancies?  Or that the models appear to withstand scrutiny?

Remdre ib xoxoff!

you've agreed that angular sun rays do not prove a flat earth (in fact, angular sun rays actually prove a globe earth, but one point at a time).. so doesn't that make you realise that other things that some flat earthers use as 'absolute proof' may also be incorrect?

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. The flat earth theory dictates the sun is just above us, the same 3000ish miles away that the moon is.. unless there's a photo of angular sun rays, at which point the believers tell you it's just above the clouds, localised, with the moon, under the dome (the model has no third celestial body)

WHY DOESN'T my angular sun rays explanation work

Finally, some actual question. 

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.   

Quote from: jroa on July 13, 2016, 10:14:48 AM

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

WHY DOESN'T my angular sun rays explanation work

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?

ignoring this too?
again, thorough explanation, no substantial argument

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? 

(my reply)
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

Crepuscular rays don't prove either model. If earth was flat, crepuscular rays would still work the way they do for the same reason they do now (perspective). What FErs claim about them is a misconception. Sun in FE is really far away as well (3000km as claimed by most), and different angles of incidence cause time zones (or so FErs think).

No. All it means is that it doesn't prove a flat earth, but it doesn't disprove it either. There are other tests that can be done to show that sun is further away than FErs say, but that is not one of them. It's just that some FErs don't realize what their own model implies.

There is no overarching, all-encompassing FE theory that all FEers believe, and you didn't say you were out to debate only one certain model or specify which models you were willing to debate. And you don't even stick to just one model when you are sharing your irrefutable evidence - bouncing from UA to dome to who-knows-what - so how is anyone supposed to know what line you refuse to cross?

It doesn't prove it isn't "localized" either. It simply shows that an argument FErs use to prove it is very close is wrong.

Let me explain it this way: if I said "Spaghetti is thin, therefore most pigs can't fly" is wrong. However, this doesn't mean pigs can fly. Similarly, FErs say "Crepuscular rays prove that sun is really close". That's wrong, but it's not a reason why sun isn't really close. There are other reasons for that.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 18, 2016, 01:08:14 AM

No. All it means is that it doesn't prove a flat earth, but it doesn't disprove it either. There are other tests that can be done to show that sun is further away than FErs say, but that is not one of them. It's just that some FErs don't realize what their own model implies.

yes, me and spacecowgirl's only agreement was that the sun rays themselves don't prove shape

but it does prove that the sun isn't localised

to which spacecowgirl's reply was 'I don't know what 'localised' means'

its near on impossible to get a straight answer in this place

Quote from: boydster on July 17, 2016, 11:31:00 AM

There is no overarching, all-encompassing FE theory that all FEers believe, and you didn't say you were out to debate only one certain model or specify which models you were willing to debate. And you don't even stick to just one model when you are sharing your irrefutable evidence - bouncing from UA to dome to who-knows-what - so how is anyone supposed to know what line you refuse to cross?

so the fact that the flat earth model changes every time, simply depending on what question is asked, is now MY FAULT??

shocking, just shocking

the points I've raised pretty much disprove every flat earth model..

if not, then for the hundredth time.. LET'S DISCUSS THE POINTS!!!

divert divert divert!

@spacecowgirl

- constellation positions disprove an infinite plane
- as does the lunar eclipse

if you don't understand how, please ask, I'll happily explain

its VERY simple to understand

Quote from: Johnorbital on July 18, 2016, 11:01:08 AM

@spacecowgirl

- constellation positions disprove an infinite plane
- as does the lunar eclipse

if you don't understand how, please ask, I'll happily explain

its VERY simple to understand

I'm not so sure they disprove the non euclidean plane model. I would be more sure if there was a proper statement of the model.