Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?

  • 181 Replies
  • 6424 Views
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #180 on: October 16, 2019, 03:59:55 AM »
You, who don't believe in what you call a mythical place, presume to dictate to the rest of the world what said mythical place would look like...
Just because we don't believe in your fantasy doesn't mean we can't describe how it should appear.

As I pointed out, FEers do that all the time (and often incorrectly) with regards to a RE. Have you tried going off at them for doing so?


The real world model of FE is right in front of you, each and everyday.
Except it's round, as all the evidence shows.

Try explaining how a FE sunset should work, without appealing to how sunsets work in reality.

For the commonly promoted FE model, it is quite easy to figure out what the angle to the sun should be, and it should never set.
No amount of perspective can make something above you appear below you.

Now, get to cross referencing your pixels to miles and give everybody here the full breakdown...
I am sick and tired of asking you to do the work you already should have done when you offered up this BS at the forum.
You are yet to demonstrate he has provided BS nor that he hasn't done the work.
Him giving you those numbers is no better than him just saying it is an accurate model.

You are the one who needs to do the work now.

*

Stash

  • 4803
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #181 on: October 16, 2019, 02:22:58 PM »
Yeah, you posted the gif of the mythical vortex solar system and then claim it somehow represents UA with ZERO inputs offered in support.
As I recall, he said along the lines of: if you look at it from a certain perspective, it's kinda, sorta what an upwardly accelerating FE universe might look like.  He never said that it was meant to be an accurate FE model.  You know, just like every other FE model ever presented by an FE'er.
Stash wrote: "ďAt the end of the day, wouldn't a scriptural interpretation of UA simply be this..."

Even when his own words are right in front of you, you choose the Adam Schiff approach and substitute your own...

Get out penguin.

Again, over and over again, you never add anything, just subtract. Is that your schtick in real life too? If so, very sad. For the umpteenth time, I wrote, "At the end of the day, wouldn't a scriptural interpretation of UA...?" It's called a question which I shouldn't have to explain to you what that is, yet again.

Do you have a problem with questions? What don't you get?

Now, as I and others have pointed out, why don't you offer up a model instead of just complaining. Or would you like to further embarrass yourself by repeatedly failing to understand the written word and basic punctuation? We'll start simple; what is the real world model for a setting sun on a flat earth?

Hey, when you call something "scriptural," that means you ascribe a level of validity to the model.

Hey, maybe you do, I certainly do not. For me "srciptural" ascribes zero validity to any model. My question was in the context of a thread regarding whether the bible infers the earth is stationary or not.

Which, as an RE adherent, you don't.

No, my belief in 'scripture' or lack there of has nothing to do with the shape of the earth. You assume quite a lot, don't you? Think before you type.

So, the point of my OP is to point out your disingenuous asshattery and inability to support said asshattery with any sort of valid reference.

Which you have yet to do. Just pointing at something and complaining is wildly different than actually formulating an argument for or against something. Something you continually demonstrate you are incapable of doing.

You, who don't believe in what you call a mythical place, presume to dictate to the rest of the world what said mythical place would look like...

I dictated nothing. I posed a question. Then I demonstrated how I think something may or may not work within an overarching theory known as Flat Earth. That's what most people do here and elsewhere. For some reason, you haven't picked up on this ever-present notion.

The real world model of FE is right in front of you, each and everyday.

The real world model of FE hasn't figured out how a real world sunset works, which, personally, I find remarkable.

Now, get to cross referencing your pixels to miles and give everybody here the full breakdown...

I am sick and tired of asking you to do the work you already should have done when you offered up this BS at the forum.

No one cares whether you are personally sick and tired of anything as you never seem to offer anything other than complaints. Your incessant whining is all you seem to serve up. I've given you the data 3 times now. For example, have you looked at the code I offered? Instead of complaining all of the time, actually put in some effort to support your theory. I've never seen you do that. You might find it illuminating.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.