What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?

I'm telling you this, because looking back later on. I realized it was a step to indoctrination, as a devoted Catholic, and they started doing it, when I was about 6 or 7 years old. And I'm thankful that my parents took me out of it. Most people wouldn't be so lucky, as I was, and would continue to be indoctrinated, day after day.





And when I tell you the next part, which I've said to others before, they say it is nonsense. Which only confirms it IS true, as I'll explain...

You've followed, and believed, and accept. a great, most powerful, most invasive, of ALL religions. The scary part. is you don't even realize it.

I didn't realize it either, but I certainly do now.

To believe in a religion, but don't even THINK it is a religion, has FAR more power and influence on people, than all other religions combined, because they are KNOWN as religions.

In fact, when I first was being indoctrinated into believing this most powerful religion, I had just been rescued from any more indoctrination of the Catholic church. 

It seems you replaced one strong belief system, Catholocism, with another, anti-science-conspiracy.  That is no different than people replacing Methodist with JW or Islam with Judaism.

While you talk about being indoctrinated by a religion, you've already been indoctrinated into believing a religion, after being idoctrinated that it is NOT a religion at all, that it is the very OPPOSITE of a religion...

It is a religion. a belief, because it has no evidence or proof. It is based on faith. and belief, from the 'leaders' of this religion. A demand of proof from those who doubt it, from those who say it is a 'science', but have no proof, np evidence, themselves. They simply say there is proof, but have none.

I prefer to use the term "evidence" rather than "proof".  There is massive evidence for a spherical earth.  There is massive evidence against FE.  Some has been presented in these very pages.  You discard evidence for a SE without being able to actually refute it.  You hold on to evidence for a FE even when it has been refuted with facts by others.  The whole concept of flying "level" is an example.

When does a 'science' make countless claims about things being SEEN, but completely refuse ANY of their claims to be PROVEN as true, while making up EXCUSES about it. instead.

ASTRONOMY, which was created after the invention of telescopes, was formed to CONTROL all telescopes, powerful enough to view stars. and 'planets', close up. Only the 'gods' called 'astronomers' shall ever be allowed to see through those telescopes, and have them.

Astronomy was around for thousands of years before telescopes. Agriculture depended on it.  Gods were created based on planets and stars.
Your belief about telescopes and control is refuted by historical fact.

If you don't believe this is a religion, these are some of your 'gods', who tell you what they have seen, while you've never seen them, knowing that nobody ELSE ever has seen them, either, accepting the same excuse that they CANNOT allow others to see them.

I've had Creationists tell me I was following the religion of Evolution.  Tens of thousands of scientists, astronomers and biologists and geologists and physicists are not gods or disciples of gods trying to get me to submit to their wills.  They are people who get educated, do research and pass on their knowledge to mankind. 

I don't understand what you mean when you say they cannot allow others to see.  You can buy a telescope better than what Galileo had and see for yourself.

When I once believed it was all true, what made me realize it was NOT true, was when I found out, all of their claims have NO proof at all, that CAN be easily proven by others, but they refuse to allow it, while only THEY have such telescopes, and own them.

They claimed that their telescopes were far too expensive to purchase, too large, and nobody but THEY would know hpw to properly USE them, and far too delicate for anyone else to SEE through!

How about you astronomers setting up the telescope, pointing it at a star, or 'planet', as close up to it as possible, first? We just LOOK through the lens, and never even TOUCH it? That would work, right?

When they claim others cannot USE their telescopes, it is complete BS.

It's obvious that you have no concept of how hard it is for highly credentialled professionals to get time on the big telescopes.  You have no idea how hard the competition is.

https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-observing-time-anonymous
Markwardt led one of the 1,173 proposals that scientists around the world submitted in November 2020 arguing their case to use JWST. "In some ways it wasn't as stressful" as other proposal submissions, Markwardt said. "I just assumed that I wouldn't get the time, so I guess I was a little less fearful of submitting it."

Go to an army base and see if they'll let you drive a tank.
Go to a racetrack and see if they'll let you drive a formula one car.
Go to Elon Musk and tell him you want to go into space but you have no money.
Go to the Keck Observatory and tell them you want time on their telescopes to prove to yourself that the earth is a sphere.
They'll all laugh you out the door.

Is it all just a vast conspiracy?

But I don't believe in this religion, unlike others here.

Actually, you ARE the one believing in the religion.  The religion of conspiracy belief.  A religion with no more evidence than there is for Shiva or Allah or Jesus or a six-day creation.  As I said earlier, you just traded one religious belief for another.  As I said, early religious indoctrination is hard to shake off. 

Quote from: Any Real Debate on October 29, 2022, 03:47:19 PM

What makes this Flat Earth Hypothesis more realistic that the Globe Earth Model?

that the Globe Earth Model what?

What’s that?

Quote from: JackBlack on November 06, 2022, 02:32:39 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 02:01:54 AM

You are incapable of separating fact from fiction.

I seem to be able to separate it quite well.
After all, I can see through your fiction quite well.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 02:01:54 AM

There is no experiments it can do to generate positive data that can be used to create either a believable model or produce a hypothesis.

This comes down to what you mean by "believable".
If you are using someone who is already quite well versed in the RE model, then it would be incredibly unlikely.
But if you get someone who has no idea, you can easily do so, as shown by the large number of FE believers.
As for a hypothesis, sure you can. You can then test that and demonstrate that it is wrong.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 02:01:54 AM

What you can’t do is bring FE fictional beliefs into the real world and try to pretend they are actual models or hypothesis

There is no pretending there.
Neither a model nor a hypothesis needs to be correct to be real.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 02:01:54 AM

hypothesis that have credibility as they don’t.

I would say that in order for a hypothesis to have credibility you need to have tested it, which would elevate it to a theory.
I would not describe any hypothesis as credible.

But again, who was pretending they have credibility?
No one. Just like last time, as you were incapable of defending the initial claim, you just switch to another.
A model doesn't need to be credible to be a model.

I also notice you have yet again ignored the list of scientific models/hypotheses which are wrong and incompatible with the world as we know it.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 02:07:49 AM

Please provide the ‘plenty’

The horizon, under normal circumstances, is indistinguishable to the unaided eye from being at eye level.
A flat map of a region of Earth works well for the level of accuracy most people have and need.
Levels, over a quite large area (e.g. 400 m from the source), do not need to be adjusted for curvature.
And so on.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 02:07:49 AM

There is a huge difference between models and hypothesis that are based on real data but that have been shown to be incorrect and fictional flat earth ideas that have no and never had have any real data to base anything on as it’s fictional.

As I said, there is plenty of real data to base it on.
It being refuted by more data doesn't mean it can't be a model or can't be a hypothesis.
It being wrong doesn't mean it can't be a model or can't be a hypothesis.

Im still failing to see your claimed 'Plenty' where is it?

Then try actually reading my post.
It's right there.

And still no comment on all those scientific models/theories which are incorrect and have no chance of being correct in this universe.
Are they not models or hypotheses?

It's not a question of it not being real, how can it be when i'ts a fiction.

Yet again, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the difference between the data from the real world/reality, and the model/hypothesis that is attempting to explain or model this.
You can have real data, supporting a false (or as you would call it, fictional) model/hypothesis.

Just like the Plum Pudding model was supported by real data, and the Rutherford model was supported by real data, and the Bohr model was supported by real data.
Yet all three models are false (or as you would call them, fiction, and by extension, you would then falsely call them not models, and then probably also attack the scientists who made them for "clinging to fiction").

Everyone's wires have been wriggled loose in our noggins, since childhood.

Yours especially.

You've followed, and believed, and accept. a great, most powerful, most invasive, of ALL religions.

Christianity?
It certainly matches your description of people not calling it a religion with so many claiming it as not a religion and instead a personal relationship with JC.

Or do you mean the potentially far more invasive religion of FEism?

Except that it is NOT a science at all.  Any actual science DOES follow the scientific method and principles. And the most important principle of science, which MAKES it a science, is evidence, proof, and without that, it is NOT a science.

No, science doesn't have proof.
So it seems you are discussing the religion of FEism, with the high prophet Row Boat.
Where FE speakers falsely claim it to be science, and even jump onto this idea of proof rather than evidence, and demand people do not think, as thinking would reveal the lies they use to prop up this religion.

This is quite unlike the RE model of real science, where you are encouraged to think.

ASTRONOMY, which was created after the invention of telescopes, was formed to CONTROL all telescopes

No, it wasn't.
What controls it is money. Big, powerful telescopes cost a lot of money to build, and require land to build it on.
If you have that money, you can get one.
Don't expect other people to pay for it.

How about you astronomers setting up the telescope, pointing it at a star, or 'planet', as close up to it as possible, first? We just LOOK through the lens, and never even TOUCH it? That would work, right?

For how many people? All 7 billion people in the world? Letting them look at loads of different things?
Just how much time would that take?
Would you also expect them to pay for your travel to and from it and for your accommodation, and also for the rest of the 7 billion people?

Instead, they provide you with photos which you just dismiss as fake.
If you already dismissing those photos as fake, why wouldn't you just dismiss the telescope view as fake.
If anything, they way you are suggesting would just lead to you claiming it as fake.
You would claim that it was set up to project an image that they wanted you to see, and that if it was real, you should be allowed to control it to move it around and see what else is there, and the fact they didn't means it is all fake so they could show you what they want you to see.

And to make it even more ridiculous for your BS, you would also point out how modern telescopes go directly to a digital camera, and have the image displayed on a screen.
So really, there is effectively no difference between "looking through the lens" and looking at a photo, which was taken by that telescope.

You already dismiss the live feed from the ISS as fake, so why should this be any different?

It doesn't matter what they do, you will find some pathetic excuse to dismiss it as fake, even if that excuse is nothing more than "it could be fake".
You have shown quite well that you are not willing to accept any evidence or thought which does not match your religious fantasy.

But I don't believe in this religion, unlike others here.

You mean you believe in the religion of FEism, which denounces actual science as religion.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 02:52:52 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 06, 2022, 02:32:39 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 02:01:54 AM

You are incapable of separating fact from fiction.

I seem to be able to separate it quite well.
After all, I can see through your fiction quite well.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 02:01:54 AM

There is no experiments it can do to generate positive data that can be used to create either a believable model or produce a hypothesis.

This comes down to what you mean by "believable".
If you are using someone who is already quite well versed in the RE model, then it would be incredibly unlikely.
But if you get someone who has no idea, you can easily do so, as shown by the large number of FE believers.
As for a hypothesis, sure you can. You can then test that and demonstrate that it is wrong.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 02:01:54 AM

What you can’t do is bring FE fictional beliefs into the real world and try to pretend they are actual models or hypothesis

There is no pretending there.
Neither a model nor a hypothesis needs to be correct to be real.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 02:01:54 AM

hypothesis that have credibility as they don’t.

I would say that in order for a hypothesis to have credibility you need to have tested it, which would elevate it to a theory.
I would not describe any hypothesis as credible.

But again, who was pretending they have credibility?
No one. Just like last time, as you were incapable of defending the initial claim, you just switch to another.
A model doesn't need to be credible to be a model.

I also notice you have yet again ignored the list of scientific models/hypotheses which are wrong and incompatible with the world as we know it.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 02:07:49 AM

Please provide the ‘plenty’

The horizon, under normal circumstances, is indistinguishable to the unaided eye from being at eye level.
A flat map of a region of Earth works well for the level of accuracy most people have and need.
Levels, over a quite large area (e.g. 400 m from the source), do not need to be adjusted for curvature.
And so on.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 02:07:49 AM

There is a huge difference between models and hypothesis that are based on real data but that have been shown to be incorrect and fictional flat earth ideas that have no and never had have any real data to base anything on as it’s fictional.

As I said, there is plenty of real data to base it on.
It being refuted by more data doesn't mean it can't be a model or can't be a hypothesis.
It being wrong doesn't mean it can't be a model or can't be a hypothesis.

Im still failing to see your claimed 'Plenty' where is it?

Then try actually reading my post.
It's right there.

And still no comment on all those scientific models/theories which are incorrect and have no chance of being correct in this universe.
Are they not models or hypotheses?

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 03:08:59 AM

It's not a question of it not being real, how can it be when i'ts a fiction.

Yet again, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the difference between the data from the real world/reality, and the model/hypothesis that is attempting to explain or model this.
You can have real data, supporting a false (or as you would call it, fictional) model/hypothesis.

Just like the Plum Pudding model was supported by real data, and the Rutherford model was supported by real data, and the Bohr model was supported by real data.
Yet all three models are false (or as you would call them, fiction, and by extension, you would then falsely call them not models, and then probably also attack the scientists who made them for "clinging to fiction").

Ok!
But where is all the Flat Earth  ‘real, plenty, data’ you referred to?
Not one shred, Is that you spouting more BS Jack?

As is your deceitful way any direct questions you don't like or in this case can’t answer you just ignore them and pretend they were never asked.

Once more you confuse reality and fiction. Of course the history of science is littered with real models and real hypothesis that didn’t make the cut. That how science works! The difference is these example you gave were examples of real science in action. How could anyone call the work of those great men of science false! I certainaly wouldn’t.
These were real scientists doing real science.

Who are these alleged flat earth scientists who have produced these mythical fake  flat earth non models and non hypothesis? Claim exist! Give me the names Jack or is this just more of your BS.

To use the work of Bohr and Rutherford to justify your flat earth nonsense is a scandal. What they did was real while everything to do with flat earth belief is both fake and fictional. Do you not understand that?

Why give real world examples to justify your your fictional and fake argument. It makes no sense whatsoever!

Again you demonstrate your complete inability to distinguish between fact and fiction with your example clearly demonstrating this.

Once more you fail Jack. Once more you demonstrate deceitfulness by not providing what you claimed existed. Let me remind you of what you said:-

‘ As I said, there is plenty of real data to base it on.‘

Where is this plenty of real flat earth data Jack you claim exists?

How on earth anything flat earth could be real is beyond belief. The very fact you claim that is staggering!

Or is this just one more of your make believe bare faced lies?

But where is all the Flat Earth  ‘real, plenty, data’ you referred to?

Again, read the post.
It isn't that hard.
Pretending it isn't there wont help you.
You are intentionally choosing to ignore it, and everyone can see that.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 02:07:49 AM

Please provide the ‘plenty’

The horizon, under normal circumstances, is indistinguishable to the unaided eye from being at eye level.
A flat map of a region of Earth works well for the level of accuracy most people have and need.
Levels, over a quite large area (e.g. 400 m from the source), do not need to be adjusted for curvature.
And so on.

As is your deceitful way any direct questions you don't like or in this case can’t answer you just ignore them and pretend they were never asked.

No, that would be your way, where you still haven't answered plenty of simple questions which show you are wrong.

Once more you confuse reality and fiction. Of course the history of science is littered with real models and real hypothesis that didn’t make the cut.

Which clearly demonstrates your claims regarding what something needs to be a model or hypothesis are pure BS.
Models and hypotheses do not need to be correct in order to be models and hypotheses.

That means you can make a model or a hypothesis with it being false.
That means Earth not being flat does not preclude the ability to make a FE model or hypothesis.

But you wish to reject this fact and replace it with a fiction that will render those models and hypotheses from science as magically not being models or hypotheses.

How could anyone call the work of those great men of science false!

But that is what you are doing.
You are claiming they are not real models.

Why give real world examples to justify your your fictional and fake argument. It makes no sense whatsoever!

To show the ridiculousness of your BS.
Again, here is your claim:

It’s not just that the earth isn’t flat there is no way it could ever be flat in this particular universe we find ourselves in which in turn precludes there ever being the possibility of a flat earth hypothesis or model.

But this applies equally to those models.
It isn't just the fact that these models are wrong, is that there is no way they could ever be correct.
The laws of nature of this universe we find ourselves in precludes the possibility of these models and hypotheses being correct.

According to you, that is enough to conclude they could not be models or hypotheses.
Thus according to you, the work of Rutherford and Bohr and Thompson was not to produce models and hypotheses but to produce works of fiction.

These failed models from reality, models which have been refuted and shown to be wrong are clear examples that a model or hypothesis does not need to be correct, it does not need to be possible in this universe, in order for it to still be a model.

You have no justification for why these should be accepted as models, but nothing which has Earth as flat could be considered a model.

Once more you demonstrate deceitfulness by not providing what you claimed existed. Let me remind you of what you said:

Quite the opposite, you demonstrate your own dishonesty by yet again ignoring what has already been provided, what was in the post you quoted.
Grow up.

Mentioned ITT so important to pass along, the village priest stated that those thinking the Bible and religion are rather wacky will be well served by reading the King James version of the Bible.

He says that reading the 1611 version is a good place to start. Go figure, but I promised I would pass it along...

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 01:59:42 PM

But where is all the Flat Earth  ‘real, plenty, data’ you referred to?

Again, read the post.
It isn't that hard.
Pretending it isn't there wont help you.
You are intentionally choosing to ignore it, and everyone can see that.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 06, 2022, 02:32:39 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 02:07:49 AM

Please provide the ‘plenty’

The horizon, under normal circumstances, is indistinguishable to the unaided eye from being at eye level.
A flat map of a region of Earth works well for the level of accuracy most people have and need.
Levels, over a quite large area (e.g. 400 m from the source), do not need to be adjusted for curvature.
And so on.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 01:59:42 PM

As is your deceitful way any direct questions you don't like or in this case can’t answer you just ignore them and pretend they were never asked.

No, that would be your way, where you still haven't answered plenty of simple questions which show you are wrong.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 01:59:42 PM

Once more you confuse reality and fiction. Of course the history of science is littered with real models and real hypothesis that didn’t make the cut.

Which clearly demonstrates your claims regarding what something needs to be a model or hypothesis are pure BS.
Models and hypotheses do not need to be correct in order to be models and hypotheses.

That means you can make a model or a hypothesis with it being false.
That means Earth not being flat does not preclude the ability to make a FE model or hypothesis.

But you wish to reject this fact and replace it with a fiction that will render those models and hypotheses from science as magically not being models or hypotheses.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 01:59:42 PM

How could anyone call the work of those great men of science false!

But that is what you are doing.
You are claiming they are not real models.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 01:59:42 PM

Why give real world examples to justify your your fictional and fake argument. It makes no sense whatsoever!

To show the ridiculousness of your BS.
Again, here is your claim:

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 01:19:09 AM

It’s not just that the earth isn’t flat there is no way it could ever be flat in this particular universe we find ourselves in which in turn precludes there ever being the possibility of a flat earth hypothesis or model.

But this applies equally to those models.
It isn't just the fact that these models are wrong, is that there is no way they could ever be correct.
The laws of nature of this universe we find ourselves in precludes the possibility of these models and hypotheses being correct.

According to you, that is enough to conclude they could not be models or hypotheses.
Thus according to you, the work of Rutherford and Bohr and Thompson was not to produce models and hypotheses but to produce works of fiction.

These failed models from reality, models which have been refuted and shown to be wrong are clear examples that a model or hypothesis does not need to be correct, it does not need to be possible in this universe, in order for it to still be a model.

You have no justification for why these should be accepted as models, but nothing which has Earth as flat could be considered a model.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 01:59:42 PM

Once more you demonstrate deceitfulness by not providing what you claimed existed. Let me remind you of what you said:

Quite the opposite, you demonstrate your own dishonesty by yet again ignoring what has already been provided, what was in the post you quoted.
Grow up.

Ok Jack rather than more smoke screens and deflections just provide the…’real plenty flat earth data’

Everyone is still waiting!

Who are these alleged flat earth scientists who have produced these mythical fake flat earth non models, or is that claim more of your made up BS.

The undeniable fact that you can’t dodge is that flat earth belief is a belief. It’s not based on any science.

The other undeniable fact is flat earth belief is a fiction plain and simple.

Everyone will agree that scientific models have to be based on data so what the ‘real plenty data’ Jack?

Using real world examples of real scientists to justify your fake claim won’t work.

So Jack just provide the ‘ plenty real flat earth data’ .

Flat earth data would be required for flat earth ‘models’
Though as everyone known such a thing is fictional.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 06, 2022, 02:14:46 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 01:59:42 PM

But where is all the Flat Earth  ‘real, plenty, data’ you referred to?

Again, read the post.
It isn't that hard.
Pretending it isn't there wont help you.
You are intentionally choosing to ignore it, and everyone can see that.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 06, 2022, 02:32:39 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 02:07:49 AM

Please provide the ‘plenty’

The horizon, under normal circumstances, is indistinguishable to the unaided eye from being at eye level.
A flat map of a region of Earth works well for the level of accuracy most people have and need.
Levels, over a quite large area (e.g. 400 m from the source), do not need to be adjusted for curvature.
And so on.

Ok Jack rather than more smoke screens and deflections just provide the…’real plenty flat earth data’
Everyone is still waiting!

No one is waiting for me to provide the data.
It is right there in that post. You have just chosen to ignore it yet again, all because you can't handle the fact that there can be FE models and hypotheses.
If you actually cared about science and the scientific method, rather than just pretend you are always right, you would admit that, and accept that these models can be used to demonstrate flaws in the idea of a FE.

The undeniable fact that you can’t dodge is that flat earth belief is a belief.

Knowledge is justified true belief.
All science is belief.
Even the RE belief is a belief.

The other undeniable fact is flat earth belief is a fiction plain and simple.
Using real world examples of real scientists to justify your fake claim won’t work.

I'm using real world examples to show the stupidity of your claims.
Everyone (who has been educated in the subject) knows the belief an atom is a solid object with positive and negative charges floating about is fiction, plain and simple.
Everyone (who has been educated in the subject) knows the belief an atom is a small, positively charged nucleus, with electrons whizzing about all over the place is fiction, plain and simple.
Everyone (who has been educated in the subject) knows the belief an atom is a small, positively charged nucleus, with electrons orbiting the nucleus in nicely spaced and fixe orbits is fiction, plain and simple.

Does that mean they aren't scientific models? NO!

Once more, a model does not need to be correct to be a model.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 07, 2022, 11:40:29 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 06, 2022, 02:14:46 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 01:59:42 PM

But where is all the Flat Earth  ‘real, plenty, data’ you referred to?

Again, read the post.
It isn't that hard.
Pretending it isn't there wont help you.
You are intentionally choosing to ignore it, and everyone can see that.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 06, 2022, 02:32:39 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 02:07:49 AM

Please provide the ‘plenty’

The horizon, under normal circumstances, is indistinguishable to the unaided eye from being at eye level.
A flat map of a region of Earth works well for the level of accuracy most people have and need.
Levels, over a quite large area (e.g. 400 m from the source), do not need to be adjusted for curvature.
And so on.

Ok Jack rather than more smoke screens and deflections just provide the…’real plenty flat earth data’
Everyone is still waiting!

No one is waiting for me to provide the data.
It is right there in that post. You have just chosen to ignore it yet again, all because you can't handle the fact that there can be FE models and hypotheses.
If you actually cared about science and the scientific method, rather than just pretend you are always right, you would admit that, and accept that these models can be used to demonstrate flaws in the idea of a FE.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 07, 2022, 11:40:29 PM

The undeniable fact that you can’t dodge is that flat earth belief is a belief.

Knowledge is justified true belief.
All science is belief.
Even the RE belief is a belief.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 07, 2022, 11:40:29 PM

The other undeniable fact is flat earth belief is a fiction plain and simple.
Using real world examples of real scientists to justify your fake claim won’t work.

I'm using real world examples to show the stupidity of your claims.
Everyone (who has been educated in the subject) knows the belief an atom is a solid object with positive and negative charges floating about is fiction, plain and simple.
Everyone (who has been educated in the subject) knows the belief an atom is a small, positively charged nucleus, with electrons whizzing about all over the place is fiction, plain and simple.
Everyone (who has been educated in the subject) knows the belief an atom is a small, positively charged nucleus, with electrons orbiting the nucleus in nicely spaced and fixe orbits is fiction, plain and simple.

Does that mean they aren't scientific models? NO!

Once more, a model does not need to be correct to be a model.

You are such a bare faced liar you have not provided one iota of 'plenty real flat earth data'

I do care about science something you obviously don't  lets remember it was YOU who tried to use real scientist and their real work to support your fake flat earth argument! Lets be clear on that.

You said :-

"Knowledge is justified true belief.
All science is belief.
Even the RE belief is a belief."

Are you trying to say flat earth belief contains knowledge as well as having 'plenty real data' ? something you have yet to reveal!

How on earth can you use real world examples to support your flat earth fiction. As I said you are incapable to separating fact from fiction.

I will say once more, where is your 'plenty real flat earth data'?

How do you know what an atom is or is not have you yourself seen one! I don't think you have any means of saying what is or what is not a fiction when it comes to atomic structure as you have no way of knowing what is the truth or not.

Yet more making stuff up. Even when I was in school a long time ago the 'solar system analogy' with electrons whizzing around a little solid nucleus was always presented as an analogy as not to be taken literally. IT was a good way of explaining the behaviour of electrons. At no time was it ever said this is what they looked like!

Yet once more you attempt to use REAL world examples to support your flat earth fictional nonsense. How about you use some of your alleged 'plenty real flat earth data' examples to support your argument?

I wonder why you dont do that Jack as you say you have 'PLENTY REAL DATA'! how about sharing and using that to support your fictional argument?


Once more if I could quote you with some criticism you are fond at throwing at others:-

"All you prove when you post this BS is your own dishonesty, just how far you are willing to go to pretend your delusional BS is justified."

I could not agree more. When are you going to stop this BS and stop lying?

Knowledge is justified true belief.
All science is belief.
Even the RE belief is a belief.

People love to play with the word "belief".  They pretend there is only one definition of the word.  Many words have multiple meanings.  Calling science a belief may be technically true, but it is (often intentionally) misleading.

belief
noun
be·​lief bə-ˈlēf
1
: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
her belief in God
a belief in democracy
I bought the table in the belief that it was an antique.
contrary to popular belief
2
: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed
an individual's religious or political beliefs
especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
the beliefs of the Catholic Church
3
: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
belief in the validity of scientific statements
 
I call your attention to #3.

All science is belief a conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

RE falls into #3.  FE falls into #2 along with Adam & Eve and Noah.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 07, 2022, 11:55:21 PM

Knowledge is justified true belief.
All science is belief.
Even the RE belief is a belief.

People love to play with the word "belief".  They pretend there is only one definition of the word.  Many words have multiple meanings.  Calling science a belief may be technically true, but it is (often intentionally) misleading.

belief
noun
be·​lief bə-ˈlēf
1
: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
her belief in God
a belief in democracy
I bought the table in the belief that it was an antique.
contrary to popular belief
2
: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed
an individual's religious or political beliefs
especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
the beliefs of the Catholic Church
3
: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
belief in the validity of scientific statements
 
I call your attention to #3.

All science is belief a conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

RE falls into #3.  FE falls into #2 along with Adam & Eve and Noah.

Jack Black is just playing silly buggers, his motive is levelling down, trying to put mainstream science and knowledge on equal footing with the flat earth fiction.

Lets remember that the flat earth fiction requires the existence of a gigantic historic global conspiracy, without that the flat earth notion would not exist.

For years Flat Earth believers and Jack have been trying to push the notion that there exists some alternative flat earth model with supporting plenty real data that explains all things flat earth, which of course is impossible and not true. Flat earth belief has no true data.

Any scientific model needs data on which the structure of the model is hung. Flat earth belief has zero data. Jack Black insists it has 'Plenty Real flat earth Data'. He maintains it exists but so far he has been either unwilling or unable to reveal it.

Flat earth believers imagine that the world as it is just now could be flat without thinking about the actual implications if the world was flat. If the world was flat the earth as it is just now would not exist and be a very different place unable to give rise to or support life.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 07, 2022, 11:55:21 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 07, 2022, 11:40:29 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 06, 2022, 02:14:46 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 01:59:42 PM

But where is all the Flat Earth  ‘real, plenty, data’ you referred to?

Again, read the post.
It isn't that hard.
Pretending it isn't there wont help you.
You are intentionally choosing to ignore it, and everyone can see that.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 06, 2022, 02:32:39 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 02:07:49 AM

Please provide the ‘plenty’

The horizon, under normal circumstances, is indistinguishable to the unaided eye from being at eye level.
A flat map of a region of Earth works well for the level of accuracy most people have and need.
Levels, over a quite large area (e.g. 400 m from the source), do not need to be adjusted for curvature.
And so on.

You are such a bare faced liar you have not provided one iota of 'plenty real flat earth data'

Are you illiterate?
Are you just choosing not to bother reading my posts, and instead just pretending I say whatever you want me to, or are you just intentionally lying?

It is right there in the quote, again, which you have ignored again.
So once more, the liar is you.
You respond to a post, keeping the quote in, yet boldly claiming by claiming the content of that quote doesn't exist.
Either your stupidity or your dishonesty knows no bounds.

I do care about science something you obviously don't  lets remember it was YOU who tried to use real scientist and their real work to support your fake flat earth argument!

Lets be clear on this:
Your claims regarding what is required for something to be a model or a hypothesis would exclude the work of these scientists.
If you accept these scientific models as models, all your pathetic reasons for pretending you can't have FE models fall apart.

So you now have a choice, dismiss the work of these scientists by claiming they didn't produce models, or accept the FE can have models.
Obviously you want to pick neither.

Are you trying to say flat earth belief contains knowledge

No, I'm pointing out your stupidity of appealing to something being a belief as if it is a problem.

How on earth can you use real world examples to support your flat earth fiction.

It isn't my fiction, but I have already provided it in the quote you keep on ignoring.

How do you know what an atom is

And there you go running off on pathetic tangents yet again.
Because you are incapable of defending your claims without attacking these scientists, you want to look for pathetic excuses.

But yet again, you have dug yourself into a corner.
You either accept the opinions of experts which clearly indicate that these outdated models of the atom are wrong, and thus by your claims these models are fiction, or you accept the fact that you haven't done experiments to determine the shape of Earth and thus you have no way to say that the FE model is fiction.

Yet more making stuff up. Even when I was in school a long time ago the 'solar system analogy' with electrons whizzing around a little solid nucleus was always presented as an analogy as not to be taken literally.

Considering it was outdated in 1912, that isn't surprising.
That doesn't change the fact that it was a model of the atom.
The Bohr model was a refinement of the Rutherford model, where it confined the electrons to specific orbits with specific energies, with other orbits or motion not allowed, to explain the observed spectroscopic data.
But ultimately, it is wrong, because you can't treat electrons in an atom as a classical particle.

I wonder why you dont do that Jack as you say you have

I wonder why you keep repeating this pathetic lie, when the data you are demanding is in every post?

I wonder why you ignore the parts of my response highlighting this fact?

Is it because I have provided real data which people can use to create a FE model (it wont be a true model which explains everything, but it will be a model), and thus it shows your claim is pure BS, so you need to resort to repeating this pathetic lie and ignoring the exposure of this lie to pretend your claims aren't pure BS?

Once more if I could quote you with some criticism you are fond at throwing at others:-
"All you prove when you post this BS is your own dishonesty, just how far you are willing to go to pretend your delusional BS is justified."

You sure do love your projection don't you.
If you don't want to prove your own dishonesty, it would probably be smarter to remove the data from the post when you quote it.

Jack Black is just playing silly buggers, his motive is levelling down, trying to put mainstream science and knowledge on equal footing with the flat earth fiction.

No where have I equated mainstream science and knowledge as being on the same footing as FE.
Instead, I have been opposing your irrational, religious attacks on the FE.

Your attacks would lead anyone who doesn't know any better to conclude the RE is nothing more than religious belief, where you are expected to just accept whatever the RE prophets say.

So I am objecting to that irrational, religious BS.

For years Flat Earth believers and Jack have been trying to push the notion that there exists some alternative flat earth model with supporting plenty real data that explains all things flat earth, which of course is impossible and not true.

Yes, that lie of yours is impossible and not true.
No where have I suggested there is a model that is capable of actually explaining everything.
Quite the opposite in fact. I have repeatedly said that these models can't explain everything, that in order to try you need to contradict other models.
That these models can be used to show problems with a FE.

Flat earth belief has no true data.

So you think the existence of Earth is false?
The FE has plenty of true data.
What it lacks is data which can distinguish between a FE and the RE model which actually explains Earth.

But because you hate the FE so much for daring to defy your religion, you attack it with whatever irrational BS you see fit, needing to resort to all sorts of BS claims.

He maintains it exists but so far he has been either unwilling or unable to reveal it.

Again, repeating the same lie wont help your case.

If the world was flat the earth as it is just now would not exist and be a very different place unable to give rise to or support life.

And how would you know that without a model of the FE to show what it can and can't do, or what is expected on this FE?

I call your attention to #3.

All science is belief a conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

If you wish to do so, why not leave it honestly (and more simply):
All science is belief of some statement based on examination of evidence.

The point remains, it is a belief. So saying something is a belief is not an attack on it.
If someone wants to attack something, do so for the lack of evidence or other supporting things, not based upon it being a belief.

Also, belief in science falls into 2 and 3, and arguably 1, depending on the exact phrasing used.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 06:40:44 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 07, 2022, 11:55:21 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 07, 2022, 11:40:29 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 06, 2022, 02:14:46 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 01:59:42 PM

But where is all the Flat Earth  ‘real, plenty, data’ you referred to?

Again, read the post.
It isn't that hard.
Pretending it isn't there wont help you.
You are intentionally choosing to ignore it, and everyone can see that.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 06, 2022, 02:32:39 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 02:07:49 AM

Please provide the ‘plenty’

The horizon, under normal circumstances, is indistinguishable to the unaided eye from being at eye level.
A flat map of a region of Earth works well for the level of accuracy most people have and need.
Levels, over a quite large area (e.g. 400 m from the source), do not need to be adjusted for curvature.
And so on.

You are such a bare faced liar you have not provided one iota of 'plenty real flat earth data'

Are you illiterate?
Are you just choosing not to bother reading my posts, and instead just pretending I say whatever you want me to, or are you just intentionally lying?

It is right there in the quote, again, which you have ignored again.
So once more, the liar is you.
You respond to a post, keeping the quote in, yet boldly claiming by claiming the content of that quote doesn't exist.
Either your stupidity or your dishonesty knows no bounds.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 06:40:44 AM

I do care about science something you obviously don't  lets remember it was YOU who tried to use real scientist and their real work to support your fake flat earth argument!

Lets be clear on this:
Your claims regarding what is required for something to be a model or a hypothesis would exclude the work of these scientists.
If you accept these scientific models as models, all your pathetic reasons for pretending you can't have FE models fall apart.

So you now have a choice, dismiss the work of these scientists by claiming they didn't produce models, or accept the FE can have models.
Obviously you want to pick neither.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 06:40:44 AM

Are you trying to say flat earth belief contains knowledge

No, I'm pointing out your stupidity of appealing to something being a belief as if it is a problem.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 06:40:44 AM

How on earth can you use real world examples to support your flat earth fiction.

It isn't my fiction, but I have already provided it in the quote you keep on ignoring.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 06:40:44 AM

How do you know what an atom is

And there you go running off on pathetic tangents yet again.
Because you are incapable of defending your claims without attacking these scientists, you want to look for pathetic excuses.

But yet again, you have dug yourself into a corner.
You either accept the opinions of experts which clearly indicate that these outdated models of the atom are wrong, and thus by your claims these models are fiction, or you accept the fact that you haven't done experiments to determine the shape of Earth and thus you have no way to say that the FE model is fiction.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 06:40:44 AM

Yet more making stuff up. Even when I was in school a long time ago the 'solar system analogy' with electrons whizzing around a little solid nucleus was always presented as an analogy as not to be taken literally.

Considering it was outdated in 1912, that isn't surprising.
That doesn't change the fact that it was a model of the atom.
The Bohr model was a refinement of the Rutherford model, where it confined the electrons to specific orbits with specific energies, with other orbits or motion not allowed, to explain the observed spectroscopic data.
But ultimately, it is wrong, because you can't treat electrons in an atom as a classical particle.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 06:40:44 AM

I wonder why you dont do that Jack as you say you have

I wonder why you keep repeating this pathetic lie, when the data you are demanding is in every post?

I wonder why you ignore the parts of my response highlighting this fact?

Is it because I have provided real data which people can use to create a FE model (it wont be a true model which explains everything, but it will be a model), and thus it shows your claim is pure BS, so you need to resort to repeating this pathetic lie and ignoring the exposure of this lie to pretend your claims aren't pure BS?

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 06:40:44 AM

Once more if I could quote you with some criticism you are fond at throwing at others:-
"All you prove when you post this BS is your own dishonesty, just how far you are willing to go to pretend your delusional BS is justified."

You sure do love your projection don't you.
If you don't want to prove your own dishonesty, it would probably be smarter to remove the data from the post when you quote it.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 08:05:58 AM

Jack Black is just playing silly buggers, his motive is levelling down, trying to put mainstream science and knowledge on equal footing with the flat earth fiction.

No where have I equated mainstream science and knowledge as being on the same footing as FE.
Instead, I have been opposing your irrational, religious attacks on the FE.

Your attacks would lead anyone who doesn't know any better to conclude the RE is nothing more than religious belief, where you are expected to just accept whatever the RE prophets say.

So I am objecting to that irrational, religious BS.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 08:05:58 AM

For years Flat Earth believers and Jack have been trying to push the notion that there exists some alternative flat earth model with supporting plenty real data that explains all things flat earth, which of course is impossible and not true.

Yes, that lie of yours is impossible and not true.
No where have I suggested there is a model that is capable of actually explaining everything.
Quite the opposite in fact. I have repeatedly said that these models can't explain everything, that in order to try you need to contradict other models.
That these models can be used to show problems with a FE.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 08:05:58 AM

Flat earth belief has no true data.

So you think the existence of Earth is false?
The FE has plenty of true data.
What it lacks is data which can distinguish between a FE and the RE model which actually explains Earth.

But because you hate the FE so much for daring to defy your religion, you attack it with whatever irrational BS you see fit, needing to resort to all sorts of BS claims.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 08:05:58 AM

He maintains it exists but so far he has been either unwilling or unable to reveal it.

Again, repeating the same lie wont help your case.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 08:05:58 AM

If the world was flat the earth as it is just now would not exist and be a very different place unable to give rise to or support life.

And how would you know that without a model of the FE to show what it can and can't do, or what is expected on this FE?

Are you stupid? It’s called disagreeing with your views. It’s called not believing your blatant lies. If you are unable to grasp that then there is no hope for you.

You are such a bullshitter Jack. How about you present your claimed ‘plenty real flat earth data’

Never mind trying to use real world situations to justify your claims. They are all real while anything to do with flat earth is fake and fictional. Do you not see the difference? If you can’t then you must be as thick as two thick planks.

Real world situations are real and as such cannot be used by you to justify your fantasy argument.

YOUR claim is to do with flat earth so use flat earth examples, like all those ‘plenty real data’ examples you claim! In all reality that was a blatant lie as there is no ‘plenty real flat earth data’ as no such things exists as flat earth and all its beliefs and claims are fictions. How can they not be?

All this had nothing whatsoever to do with anything real world so stop with your deflections.

The fact that there can be no such thing as a flat earth model or hypothesis is because everything associated with flat earth belief is not real, it’s s myth it’s s fiction. It has no ‘plenty real data’ it’s has nothing other than fictional beliefs, fantasy and a gigantic historic conspiracy!

I’m not going to dismiss the work of real scientists as they are real, their work was real regardless of it being either right or wrong. They were dealing with real data, real ideas and real hypothesis based on real data. This is totally different from the flat earth situation where they have nothing that’s real.

The real information about real scientists you have given has nothing to do with your argument.
Where is your flat earth data why have you not used any of that in your argument?

The reason why you don’t is it does not exist and that very fact of it not existing proves it’s inability to construct either hypothesis or model.

If you think it can, provide the ‘plenty real flat earth data’ you claim exists and stop using real world situations that have no bearing on your non existent argument.

Quote from: ecco on November 08, 2022, 07:31:52 AM

I call your attention to #3.

All science is belief a conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

If you wish to do so, why not leave it honestly (and more simply):
All science is belief of some statement based on examination of evidence.

The point remains, it is a belief. So saying something is a belief is not an attack on it.
If someone wants to attack something, do so for the lack of evidence or other supporting things, not based upon it being a belief.

Also, belief in science falls into 2 and 3, and arguably 1, depending on the exact phrasing used.

Pure BS.

You may have noticed that my ‘footer’ is what a laugh.  Funnily enough it’s just so applicable to Jack Black and his futile BS.

The funny thing is this particular  debate is about the existence or possibility of there being alternative Flat Earth Scientific Models or flat Earth Hypothesis which of course as we all know is nonsense as the whole of flat earth belief is fictional and its notions all rely on the existence of a global conspiracy.

One would imagine if arguing for the existence of such things, flat earth models etc, one would use flat earth examples to prove his point. But no not once has he referred to anything to do with flat earth thought or ideas, instead he had used real world examples involving real scientists! WHY? What is the point in that?

I have no problems with the real world examples involving real scientists like Bohr and Rutherford who were both instrumental in the development of our knowledge of all things sub atomic and both if I remember correctly winners of Nobel prizes. So why use them and their real work to support fictional flat earth notions? What a laugh! What a fool.

What a laugh indeed. His approach proves my point. He has not used flat earth examples for the simple reason that they don’t actually exist, despite him claiming or lying to be more exact that he had ‘plenty real flat earth  data’. The nature and content of his argument proves my point.

Flat earther have always tried to project the notion that their ideas can be seen as an alternative to what conventional science says, which is of course impossible as all flat earth notions are myths or fictions. There is no alternative flat earth idea to explain what we experience as the whole of flat earth thought is as I said combination of myth and fiction supported by s gigantic global conspiracy with not one thing being real, something which Jack Black has chosen vainly to support!

The big question for him is where are the examples of the things he maintains are real?

Just as flat earth belief has no connection with either facts or the truth neither does Jack Black’s arguments which like all things flat earth are based on ignorance and lies.

Are you stupid? It’s called disagreeing with your views.

No, it isn't, at least not if you want to label it honestly.
It's called repeatedly lying about me and what I have done so you can pretend I am wrong and you are right, while fleeing from the actual facts which demonstrate the opposite.

It’s called not believing your blatant lies.

What blatant lies? You are yet to provide a single example.
You keep lying about what I say and refusing to provide quotes to back up those lies, but that would be your lies, not mine.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 08, 2022, 01:09:34 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 06:40:44 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 07, 2022, 11:55:21 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 07, 2022, 11:40:29 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 06, 2022, 02:14:46 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 01:59:42 PM

But where is all the Flat Earth  ‘real, plenty, data’ you referred to?

Again, read the post.
It isn't that hard.
Pretending it isn't there wont help you.
You are intentionally choosing to ignore it, and everyone can see that.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 06, 2022, 02:32:39 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 02:07:49 AM

Please provide the ‘plenty’

The horizon, under normal circumstances, is indistinguishable to the unaided eye from being at eye level.
A flat map of a region of Earth works well for the level of accuracy most people have and need.
Levels, over a quite large area (e.g. 400 m from the source), do not need to be adjusted for curvature.
And so on.

How about you present your claimed ‘plenty real flat earth data’

Again, spouting this BS when the data is in the posts you keep on quoting just shows your dishonesty.
How about you read the post and respond to the data which has been presented?

while anything to do with flat earth is fake and fictional.

Again, are you saying Earth is fake and fictional?
Earth is certainly to do with flat Earth.
So just what planet are we on if not Earth? Or are you suggesting this entire world is fake and fictional?

Something being fictional doesn't mean everything to do with it is fake and fictional.
As another example, Harry Potter is set in England and they go to King's Cross station to board the train to Hogwarts.
Does Harry Potter being fictional mean England and King's Cross station is fictional?
No.
You would have to be insane to suggest such a thing.
Yet here you are doing the equivalent for a FE.

Real world situations are real and as such cannot be used by you to justify your fantasy argument.

Pure BS.
If by "justify" you mean make models and hypotheses of fictional things.
Otherwise, we wouldn't have had those incorrect scientific models that you keep fleeing from.

Do you understand the difference between a model existing (even one based upon data from the real world), and a model being true?

All this had nothing whatsoever to do with anything real world so stop with your deflections.

Appealing to refuted scientific models to show the insanity of your claims and the hypocrisy of your position is not a deflection.

I’m not going to dismiss the work of real scientists as they are real, their work was real regardless of it being either right or wrong.

And the only way to do that, while being consistent and honest is if you accept the fact that you CAN have FE models and FE hypotheses, that these CAN be based upon real data, even though they are wrong.
If you wish to continue asserting the FE can't have models or data, the only honest, consistent way to do so is to claim the work of those scientists are not models, as they are wrong.

Where is your flat earth data why have you not used any of that in your argument?

I have. The real question is why do you keep on ignoring it, repeating the same pathetic lie that it hasn't been provided?
Is it because you have no way to respond to it honestly other than just admitting you were wrong?

Pure BS.

And more pathetic irrational attacks.
If it was pure BS, you would be able to refute it.
But you know you can't.
You know it is true, but you hate it, because it goes against your religion, so you lash out with irrational attacks.

You may have noticed that my ‘footer’ is what a laugh.  Funnily enough it’s just so applicable to Jack Black and his futile BS.

Yes, the futile effort of trying to get you to admit you are wrong, or at least stop spouting all your BS, when you clearly have no interest in doing that, as it would likely go against your religion.

The funny thing is this particular  debate is about the existence or possibility of there being alternative Flat Earth Scientific Models or flat Earth Hypothesis

Not really, the funny thing is how you have tried all this BS before, and have been entirely incapable of defending your BS claim.
We know that the only way you can hope to defend it is if you claim that any scientific model which was later shown to be incorrect was never a model to begin with.
But that would be too much of an attack on your precious experts which you can't handle, so you continue with this dishonest double standard, all while keeping up entirely irrational attacks on the FE, making the RE position seem pathetic, as if it was strong why would you need to use such dishonest tactics?

I have no problems with the real world examples

Just so long as they don't show your BS to be BS.

So why use them and their real work to support fictional flat earth notions?

To expose your hypocrisy and double standards.
Their work produced models which are not correct, which have no chance of being correct in this universe we find ourselves in.
By your insane standards, that precludes them from being models, and instead results in them being labelled as fake and fiction.
Yet you refuse to apply such labels or such standards to them.

You reserve those for the FE and other things that oppose your religion.

What a laugh indeed. His approach proves my point. He has not used flat earth examples

I have used examples, examples of data from the real world which could lead to the formation of a FE model or a FE hypothesis.
So in reality, all you are doing is proving my point.
You are wrong, you can't admit it, and you are willing to use whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend you are right.

The nature and content of his argument proves my point.

So me using examples to show how a FE model could come to be, and using examples of things you accept as models which are comparable to FE models in the sense that they are wrong, and using them to expose your dishonest double standard proves your point?
Just how do you think it does that?

There is no alternative flat earth idea to explain what we experience as the whole of flat earth thought is as I said combination of myth and fiction supported by s gigantic global conspiracy with not one thing being real, something which Jack Black had chosen vainly to support!

Quite the opposite. This alleged support has nothing to do with supporting the FE, but opposing your anti-scientific, religious BS. You are just as bad (if not worse) as all the FEers you attack.

The big question for him is where are the examples of the things he maintains are real?

In the post, quoted each time, which you keep on ignoring, because you can't handle reality.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 03:13:08 PM

Are you stupid? It’s called disagreeing with your views.

No, it isn't, at least not if you want to label it honestly.
It's called repeatedly lying about me and what I have done so you can pretend I am wrong and you are right, while fleeing from the actual facts which demonstrate the opposite.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 03:13:08 PM

It’s called not believing your blatant lies.

What blatant lies? You are yet to provide a single example.
You keep lying about what I say and refusing to provide quotes to back up those lies, but that would be your lies, not mine.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 03:13:08 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 08, 2022, 01:09:34 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 06:40:44 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 07, 2022, 11:55:21 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 07, 2022, 11:40:29 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 06, 2022, 02:14:46 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 01:59:42 PM

But where is all the Flat Earth  ‘real, plenty, data’ you referred to?

Again, read the post.
It isn't that hard.
Pretending it isn't there wont help you.
You are intentionally choosing to ignore it, and everyone can see that.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 06, 2022, 02:32:39 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 02:07:49 AM

Please provide the ‘plenty’

The horizon, under normal circumstances, is indistinguishable to the unaided eye from being at eye level.
A flat map of a region of Earth works well for the level of accuracy most people have and need.
Levels, over a quite large area (e.g. 400 m from the source), do not need to be adjusted for curvature.
And so on.

How about you present your claimed ‘plenty real flat earth data’

Again, spouting this BS when the data is in the posts you keep on quoting just shows your dishonesty.
How about you read the post and respond to the data which has been presented?

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 03:13:08 PM

while anything to do with flat earth is fake and fictional.

Again, are you saying Earth is fake and fictional?
Earth is certainly to do with flat Earth.
So just what planet are we on if not Earth? Or are you suggesting this entire world is fake and fictional?

Something being fictional doesn't mean everything to do with it is fake and fictional.
As another example, Harry Potter is set in England and they go to King's Cross station to board the train to Hogwarts.
Does Harry Potter being fictional mean England and King's Cross station is fictional?
No.
You would have to be insane to suggest such a thing.
Yet here you are doing the equivalent for a FE.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 03:13:08 PM

Real world situations are real and as such cannot be used by you to justify your fantasy argument.

Pure BS.
If by "justify" you mean make models and hypotheses of fictional things.
Otherwise, we wouldn't have had those incorrect scientific models that you keep fleeing from.

Do you understand the difference between a model existing (even one based upon data from the real world), and a model being true?

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 03:13:08 PM

All this had nothing whatsoever to do with anything real world so stop with your deflections.

Appealing to refuted scientific models to show the insanity of your claims and the hypocrisy of your position is not a deflection.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 03:13:08 PM

I’m not going to dismiss the work of real scientists as they are real, their work was real regardless of it being either right or wrong.

And the only way to do that, while being consistent and honest is if you accept the fact that you CAN have FE models and FE hypotheses, that these CAN be based upon real data, even though they are wrong.
If you wish to continue asserting the FE can't have models or data, the only honest, consistent way to do so is to claim the work of those scientists are not models, as they are wrong.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 03:13:08 PM

Where is your flat earth data why have you not used any of that in your argument?

I have. The real question is why do you keep on ignoring it, repeating the same pathetic lie that it hasn't been provided?
Is it because you have no way to respond to it honestly other than just admitting you were wrong?

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 03:14:15 PM

Pure BS.

And more pathetic irrational attacks.
If it was pure BS, you would be able to refute it.
But you know you can't.
You know it is true, but you hate it, because it goes against your religion, so you lash out with irrational attacks.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 11:15:13 PM

You may have noticed that my ‘footer’ is what a laugh.  Funnily enough it’s just so applicable to Jack Black and his futile BS.

Yes, the futile effort of trying to get you to admit you are wrong, or at least stop spouting all your BS, when you clearly have no interest in doing that, as it would likely go against your religion.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 11:15:13 PM

The funny thing is this particular  debate is about the existence or possibility of there being alternative Flat Earth Scientific Models or flat Earth Hypothesis

Not really, the funny thing is how you have tried all this BS before, and have been entirely incapable of defending your BS claim.
We know that the only way you can hope to defend it is if you claim that any scientific model which was later shown to be incorrect was never a model to begin with.
But that would be too much of an attack on your precious experts which you can't handle, so you continue with this dishonest double standard, all while keeping up entirely irrational attacks on the FE, making the RE position seem pathetic, as if it was strong why would you need to use such dishonest tactics?

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 11:15:13 PM

I have no problems with the real world examples

Just so long as they don't show your BS to be BS.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 11:15:13 PM

So why use them and their real work to support fictional flat earth notions?

To expose your hypocrisy and double standards.
Their work produced models which are not correct, which have no chance of being correct in this universe we find ourselves in.
By your insane standards, that precludes them from being models, and instead results in them being labelled as fake and fiction.
Yet you refuse to apply such labels or such standards to them.

You reserve those for the FE and other things that oppose your religion.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 11:15:13 PM

What a laugh indeed. His approach proves my point. He has not used flat earth examples

I have used examples, examples of data from the real world which could lead to the formation of a FE model or a FE hypothesis.
So in reality, all you are doing is proving my point.
You are wrong, you can't admit it, and you are willing to use whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend you are right.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 11:15:13 PM

The nature and content of his argument proves my point.

So me using examples to show how a FE model could come to be, and using examples of things you accept as models which are comparable to FE models in the sense that they are wrong, and using them to expose your dishonest double standard proves your point?
Just how do you think it does that?

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 11:15:13 PM

There is no alternative flat earth idea to explain what we experience as the whole of flat earth thought is as I said combination of myth and fiction supported by s gigantic global conspiracy with not one thing being real, something which Jack Black had chosen vainly to support!

Quite the opposite. This alleged support has nothing to do with supporting the FE, but opposing your anti-scientific, religious BS. You are just as bad (if not worse) as all the FEers you attack.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 11:15:13 PM

The big question for him is where are the examples of the things he maintains are real?

In the post, quoted each time, which you keep on ignoring, because you can't handle reality.

Using Harry Potter to prove your point! Now that is a laugh.

Tell you what why don’t you go and try standing on platform 9 3/4 and wait for a train and see how you get on!

You keep avoiding the issue constantly deflecting and lying . Where are these alleged Flat Earth Models and hypothesis you say are real!

Where are they Jack? and where is the ‘plenty real flat earth data’? Quoting Harry Potter ain’t going to do it! It just makes you look like an even bigger fool.

Then you say this:-

“I have used examples, examples of data from the real world which could lead to the formation of a FE model or a FE hypothesis.”

Ok Jack please explain how the work done by Bohr, Rutherford and J K Rowling could be used to form any thing to do with the flat earth? Though I will give you the fictional magic and talking hats from Harry Potter! which is well suited to flat earth thinking.

Once more not a single piece of flat earth evidence to support your non argument. Resorting to Harry Potter. now that is a laugh!

Where are all your ‘plenty real’ flat earth examples Jack? Why not take a look in your talking hat you might find them there. Careful not to fall of your broomstick!

You say Flat Earth models and hypothesis are both real, well why don’t you present some and we can test them out!

Let’s examine another thing you say.
You said this:-

“So me using examples to show how a FE model could come to be, and using examples of things you accept as models which are comparable to FE models in the sense that they are wrong, and using them to expose your dishonest double standard proves your point?
Just how do you think it does that?”


Comparable! Never. Nothing flat earth can ever be comparable to something in the real word. Nothing in the real world can ever be used to justify anything flat earth related.
You have not shown anything flat earth related in any of your posts not once have you put forward any flat earth notions, nor have you demonstrated how a flat earth model could be constructed! Where are all your flat earth facts Jack?

Real world scientific ideas and models have nothing to do with anything flat earth. Flat earth ideas reject all of conventional science. There is no connection or parallel between the two.

Flat earth and it’s ideas are all fictional based on no real data can you not understand that?

Real scientific ideas are based on real data while flat earth ideas are based on no data!

That is the difference snd something you appear to be incapable of understanding!

Flat earth is a fiction and a myth that has zero data to support it which is the very reason why you are unable to present any!

You say these things exist while being unable to present any examples to prove they exist! Instead you use Harry Potter!

Using Harry Potter to prove your point! Now that is a laugh.

Again, the "laugh" is just how irrational you need to be, to pretend to prove your point.

Tell you what why don’t you go and try standing on platform 9 3/4 and wait for a train and see how you get on!

Tell you what, why don't you go to King's Cross in England, and show me just how fictional that is.
Better yet, here is an article on it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_King%27s_Cross_railway_station

It certainly seems to be real.
But according to your fantasy, because Harry Potter is fictional, King's Cross and England must all be fictional.
If nothing real could ever be associated with something fictional.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 08, 2022, 11:25:44 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 03:13:08 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 08, 2022, 01:09:34 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 06:40:44 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 07, 2022, 11:55:21 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 07, 2022, 11:40:29 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 06, 2022, 02:14:46 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 01:59:42 PM

But where is all the Flat Earth  ‘real, plenty, data’ you referred to?

Again, read the post.
It isn't that hard.
Pretending it isn't there wont help you.
You are intentionally choosing to ignore it, and everyone can see that.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 06, 2022, 02:32:39 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 02:07:49 AM

Please provide the ‘plenty’

The horizon, under normal circumstances, is indistinguishable to the unaided eye from being at eye level.
A flat map of a region of Earth works well for the level of accuracy most people have and need.
Levels, over a quite large area (e.g. 400 m from the source), do not need to be adjusted for curvature.
And so on.

You keep avoiding the issue constantly deflecting and lying . Where are these alleged Flat Earth Models and hypothesis you say are real!
Where are they Jack? and where is the ‘plenty real flat earth data’?

No, that would be you.
Now you are deflecting from the question of real data to real models.

There are plenty of FE models, such as one which has Earth as a disk with the sun circling above.

Quoting Harry Potter ain’t going to do it! It just makes you look like an even bigger fool.

That just makes you look like a fool for yet again failing to understand why it was used.
Most people fully accept that Harry Potter is fictional, but even though it is fictional and it related to England and King's Cross Station; King's Cross station and England are real.
It was used simply to demonstrate the stupidity of pretending that because FE is fictional, everything associated with it must be.

Ok Jack please explain how the work done by Bohr, Rutherford and J K Rowling could be used to form any thing to do with the flat earth?

Again, it isn't to do directly with the FE, it is to expose the stupidity and hypocrisy/double standards of your claims.

If you want to claim stupid BS like this:

They are all real while anything to do with flat earth is fake and fictional.
...
The fact that there can be no such thing as a flat earth model or hypothesis is because everything associated with flat earth belief is not real, it’s s myth it’s s fiction.

Then I will use simple, commonly known fictional things like Harry Potter, which incorporates elements from the real world, to show just how stupid such a claim is.
To show just how irrational and pathetic your attack on the FE is.

Likewise, if you claim stupid BS like this:

It’s not just that the earth isn’t flat there is no way it could ever be flat in this particular universe we find ourselves in which in turn precludes there ever being the possibility of a flat earth hypothesis or model.

Then I will use examples of refuted scientific models which could never be true in this particular universe, to show your hypocrisy and double standards.
With a insane claim of yours like that, to be consistent you must claim the refuted models of the atom are not models, and could never be models because they are incompatible with this universe.

This stupidity shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what a model or hypothesis is.

Are you sure you aren't really a FEer trying to make the RE look bad?
Because you certainly do a great job of it.

Once more not a single piece of flat earth evidence to support your non argument. Resorting to Harry Potter. now that is a laugh!

Where are all your ‘plenty real’ flat earth examples Jack?

That is still in the post you quoted, which you still refuse to engage with.
It's also pretty damn obvious which part of the post it is.
How long will you continue with this dishonest BS?

You say Flat Earth models and hypothesis are both real, well why don’t you present some and we can test them out!

And yet again you fail to understand what a model or hypothesis being real means.
If you are planning on refuting the model or hypothesis to pretend that means that isn't one, I will again refer you back to the refuted models of the atom.
You can test these out and show they don't work to describe reality. Does that mean they aren't models?

Nothing in the real world can ever be used to justify anything flat earth related.
You have not shown anything flat earth related in any of your posts not once have you put forward any flat earth notions, nor have you demonstrated how a flat earth model could be constructed!

Again, ignoring the contents of the post you have repeatedly quoted to make BS lies like this, just further demonstrates your dishonesty.

Flat earth ideas reject all of conventional science.

No they don't. They cherry pick which parts they want to keep and which parts they want to ignore.

Flat earth and it’s ideas are all fictional based on no real data can you not understand that?

I can understand the meaning of that sentence, but I recognise it is pure BS.
Just like if you were to claim the same about Harry Potter you would be spouting pure BS.

Something being fictional or false does not mean it can't be based upon the real world. Do you understand that?
It is really quite simple to understand, and so trivial to demonstrate with things like Harry Potter.
Yet you continue to pretend it could never be the case, all to try and prop up your pathetic religion.

The battle of semantics continues.....

The arguments in any episode of Seinfeld, have more substance than this!

Let's paraphrase:

Jock Block's flat earth data is all the flat earth arguments. This belief is belief in the validity of this data.

Meanwhile, this belief blind and is based on proven falsehoods and fiction, as Tiemeup proclaims, as opposed to belief in the scientific method.

You pair give globe earthers a bad name. At least flat earthers argue about something! But, semantics!!

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 11:59:08 PM

Using Harry Potter to prove your point! Now that is a laugh.

Again, the "laugh" is just how irrational you need to be, to pretend to prove your point.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 11:59:08 PM

Tell you what why don’t you go and try standing on platform 9 3/4 and wait for a train and see how you get on!

Tell you what, why don't you go to King's Cross in England, and show me just how fictional that is.
Better yet, here is an article on it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_King%27s_Cross_railway_station

It certainly seems to be real.
But according to your fantasy, because Harry Potter is fictional, King's Cross and England must all be fictional.
If nothing real could ever be associated with something fictional.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 11:59:08 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 08, 2022, 11:25:44 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 03:13:08 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 08, 2022, 01:09:34 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 06:40:44 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 07, 2022, 11:55:21 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 07, 2022, 11:40:29 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 06, 2022, 02:14:46 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 01:59:42 PM

But where is all the Flat Earth  ‘real, plenty, data’ you referred to?

Again, read the post.
It isn't that hard.
Pretending it isn't there wont help you.
You are intentionally choosing to ignore it, and everyone can see that.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 06, 2022, 02:32:39 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 02:07:49 AM

Please provide the ‘plenty’

The horizon, under normal circumstances, is indistinguishable to the unaided eye from being at eye level.
A flat map of a region of Earth works well for the level of accuracy most people have and need.
Levels, over a quite large area (e.g. 400 m from the source), do not need to be adjusted for curvature.
And so on.

You keep avoiding the issue constantly deflecting and lying . Where are these alleged Flat Earth Models and hypothesis you say are real!
Where are they Jack? and where is the ‘plenty real flat earth data’?

No, that would be you.
Now you are deflecting from the question of real data to real models.

There are plenty of FE models, such as one which has Earth as a disk with the sun circling above.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 11:59:08 PM

Quoting Harry Potter ain’t going to do it! It just makes you look like an even bigger fool.

That just makes you look like a fool for yet again failing to understand why it was used.
Most people fully accept that Harry Potter is fictional, but even though it is fictional and it related to England and King's Cross Station; King's Cross station and England are real.
It was used simply to demonstrate the stupidity of pretending that because FE is fictional, everything associated with it must be.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 11:59:08 PM

Ok Jack please explain how the work done by Bohr, Rutherford and J K Rowling could be used to form any thing to do with the flat earth?

Again, it isn't to do directly with the FE, it is to expose the stupidity and hypocrisy/double standards of your claims.

If you want to claim stupid BS like this:

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 03:13:08 PM

They are all real while anything to do with flat earth is fake and fictional.
...
The fact that there can be no such thing as a flat earth model or hypothesis is because everything associated with flat earth belief is not real, it’s s myth it’s s fiction.

Then I will use simple, commonly known fictional things like Harry Potter, which incorporates elements from the real world, to show just how stupid such a claim is.
To show just how irrational and pathetic your attack on the FE is.

Likewise, if you claim stupid BS like this:

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 01:19:09 AM

It’s not just that the earth isn’t flat there is no way it could ever be flat in this particular universe we find ourselves in which in turn precludes there ever being the possibility of a flat earth hypothesis or model.

Then I will use examples of refuted scientific models which could never be true in this particular universe, to show your hypocrisy and double standards.
With a insane claim of yours like that, to be consistent you must claim the refuted models of the atom are not models, and could never be models because they are incompatible with this universe.

This stupidity shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what a model or hypothesis is.

Are you sure you aren't really a FEer trying to make the RE look bad?
Because you certainly do a great job of it.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 11:59:08 PM

Once more not a single piece of flat earth evidence to support your non argument. Resorting to Harry Potter. now that is a laugh!

Where are all your ‘plenty real’ flat earth examples Jack?

That is still in the post you quoted, which you still refuse to engage with.
It's also pretty damn obvious which part of the post it is.
How long will you continue with this dishonest BS?

Quote from: Timeisup on November 09, 2022, 12:29:44 AM

You say Flat Earth models and hypothesis are both real, well why don’t you present some and we can test them out!

And yet again you fail to understand what a model or hypothesis being real means.
If you are planning on refuting the model or hypothesis to pretend that means that isn't one, I will again refer you back to the refuted models of the atom.
You can test these out and show they don't work to describe reality. Does that mean they aren't models?

Quote from: Timeisup on November 09, 2022, 12:29:44 AM

Nothing in the real world can ever be used to justify anything flat earth related.
You have not shown anything flat earth related in any of your posts not once have you put forward any flat earth notions, nor have you demonstrated how a flat earth model could be constructed!

Again, ignoring the contents of the post you have repeatedly quoted to make BS lies like this, just further demonstrates your dishonesty.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 09, 2022, 12:29:44 AM

Flat earth ideas reject all of conventional science.

No they don't. They cherry pick which parts they want to keep and which parts they want to ignore.

Quote from: Timeisup on November 09, 2022, 12:29:44 AM

Flat earth and it’s ideas are all fictional based on no real data can you not understand that?

I can understand the meaning of that sentence, but I recognise it is pure BS.
Just like if you were to claim the same about Harry Potter you would be spouting pure BS.

Something being fictional or false does not mean it can't be based upon the real world. Do you understand that?
It is really quite simple to understand, and so trivial to demonstrate with things like Harry Potter.
Yet you continue to pretend it could never be the case, all to try and prop up your pathetic religion.

Unlike you Ive been to Kings X many many times over the years and as I said you stand as much change of catching a train on platform 9 3/4 as you have of proving anything to do with the flat earth. While there is a sign where people line up to have their photo taken....there is no real actual platform, it's a fun fantasy. Unlike you I don't need to refer to Expert Opinion to know the truth of the matter as I have direct experience which is more than you! Its just one of the many many things you personally know nothing about.

Silly Harry Potter arguments aside, why have you not used any real fact supported flat earth examples in your arguments? why do you keep avoid doing that or answering questions as to why?

Ah....Now you say this:-

"There are plenty of FE models, such as one which has Earth as a disk with the sun circling above"

Ok Jack that is just a fictional statement how about supplying the supporting facts, as it!  A model is not just a statement you have to give more. Everyone knows a model needs:-

1. to be based on reliable observations. ( an impossibility for flat earth)

So Jack how about you list some reliable observations

2. Be able to explain the characteristics of the observations used to formulate it. ( fThat statement can explain nothing as its fictional)

So Jack how about explaining what we observe and have actually see and observed is at odds with what you propose?

3. Be able to explain phenomena that were not used to develop the model. ( As its a fiction it has no relationship with or to reality)

Come on Jack how did your flat earth form when all other large bodies are spherical? does your model explain that?

4 Be able to be refined when new, credible, conflicting observations arise. ( As its a fiction it ignores and contradicts all reality)

Well Jack there is so much conflicting evidence but lets just deal with the fact that the earth is a sphere! Please explain that.

What you proposed is not a model, it has zero supporting facts its just a fictional statement with NO science to support it.

You really are barking, barking up a mythical tree if you imagine there is any sense in this other silly statement you made:-

"But according to your fantasy, because Harry Potter is fictional, King's Cross and England must all be fictional.
If nothing real could ever be associated with something fictional"

No Jack Harry Potter is indeed fictional, and England is indeed real. We will let the fact go that Harry Potter was conceived and written in Edinburgh in Scotland in various coffee shops less than a mile from where Im currently sitting responding to your lies and garbage.

No one has ever said that fictional stories could not contain or be based on actual places. While Kings X in London is totally real its is impossible to catch a train on platform 9 3/4 as it does not exist, much like you flat earth facts.


You also stated:-

"That is still in the post you quoted, which you still refuse to engage with.
It's also pretty damn obvious which part of the post it is.
How long will you continue with this dishonest BS?"

Go on Jack humor me and provide a link, I must have missed it which is hardly surprising given the quantity of lies and garbage you produce.


You then say:-

"Something being fictional or false does not mean it can't be based upon the real world. Do you understand that?
It is really quite simple to understand, and so trivial to demonstrate with things like Harry Potter.
Yet you continue to pretend it could never be the case, all to try and prop up your pathetic religion"

Fiction can often be based on the real world I think that is a true statement with many supporting examples. The problem begins when you try too say that myth and fiction can be used to construct both scientific models and generate hypothesis which could be used as an alternative explanation of those constructed by actual science. That is some thing that flat earth notions cant do. Just as you can't catch a train at the fictional platform 9 3/4 which is fictionally located at the real Kings X you cant generate a scientific model about the real earth by using fictional flat earth notions that have no supporting facts or observations.

Once more Jack you fail to put together a cohesive argument that is BS free and contains no lies.

Use of the refuted scientific models you like as they are proper scientific models that were all initially based honest observations and the known facts. This is very very different from flat earth notions which are not based on anything that can remotely be described as a valid observation or fact.

The battle of semantics continues.....

The arguments in any episode of Seinfeld, have more substance than this!

Let's paraphrase:

Jock Block's flat earth data is all the flat earth arguments. This belief is belief in the validity of this data.

Meanwhile, this belief blind and is based on proven falsehoods and fiction, as Tiemeup proclaims, as opposed to belief in the scientific method.

You pair give globe earthers a bad name. At least flat earthers argue about something! But, semantics!!

Thats just your opinion.

Jack Black is just playing silly buggers, his motive is levelling down, trying to put mainstream science and knowledge on equal footing with the flat earth fiction.
...
For years Flat Earth believers and Jack have been trying to push the notion that there exists some alternative flat earth model with supporting plenty real data that explains all things flat earth, which of course is impossible and not true. Flat earth belief has no true data.
...
Flat earth believers imagine that the world as it is just now could be flat without thinking about the actual implications if the world was flat. If the world was flat the earth as it is just now would not exist and be a very different place unable to give rise to or support life.

Thanks for the background on JB.  This newbie appreciates it.

The FE has plenty of true data.

 
What is this "true data"?  All I have seen from FE proponents is opinions.  Opinions that are often based on ignorance.  One example is how an altimeter works and how an altimeter is used.

What it lacks is data which can distinguish between a FE and the RE model which actually explains Earth.

Then what is the value of what you call "true data"?

Quote from: ecco on November 08, 2022, 07:31:52 AM

I call your attention to #3.

All science is belief a conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

If you wish to do so, why not leave it honestly (and more simply):
All science is belief of some statement based on examination of evidence.

The point remains, it is a belief. So saying something is a belief is not an attack on it.
If someone wants to attack something, do so for the lack of evidence or other supporting things, not based upon it being a belief.

Also, belief in science falls into 2 and 3, and arguably 1, depending on the exact phrasing used.

The phrase, "science is a belief" is an attack on science because of the way it is usually used and the agenda of the people using it. 

The people saying "science is a belief" are trying to put science into the same category as "religion is a belief".

You know this, so I don't understand the stance you are taking in this conversation.  Perhaps you just feel the need to need to post something for the sake of argument.  Perhaps you are just blowing smoke (pun intended).
 

It's a slippery slope for sure. But if I look at it as believe versus know, I have to lean toward believe. From a philosophical, not practical perspective.

- Philosophically, we truly don't know anything
- Practically, we know a lot

- Philosophically, in science, we believe our assumptions/hypotheses, our data, our evidence, sometimes to an almost 100% degrees of "knowing". But still, there is an element of belief that we got everything right, or that something else won't come around and knock it off its pedestal.
- Practically, in science, ex., we know we need oxygen to survive.

The battle of semantics continues.....

The arguments in any episode of Seinfeld, have more substance than this!

Let's paraphrase:

Jock Block's flat earth data is all the flat earth arguments. This belief is belief in the validity of this data.

Meanwhile, this belief blind and is based on proven falsehoods and fiction, as Tiemeup proclaims, as opposed to belief in the scientific method.

You pair give globe earthers a bad name. At least flat earthers argue about something! But, semantics!!

It is indeed about semantics.  Jack likes to conflate the meanings and usage of words.  Words like "belief" which has three very different definitions.  Words like "fiction".

On the one hand...
literature in the form of prose, especially short stories and novels, that describes imaginary events and people.
Similar:
novels
stories
creative writing
imaginative writing
works of the imagination
prose literature
narration
story telling
romance
fable


...and the other...
invention or fabrication as opposed to fact.

FE is not about the former.  It is about the latter. 

But Jack don't care.  Jack likes to convolute things so he can make lots of

Unlike you Ive been to Kings X many many times

Really?
But it is in Harry Potter, and according to your delusional BS, because Harry Potter is fictional, that means Kings Cross station must be fictional.
Understand why I brought it up yet?

Quote from: JackBlack on November 09, 2022, 01:20:34 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 11:59:08 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 08, 2022, 11:25:44 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 03:13:08 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 08, 2022, 01:09:34 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 08, 2022, 06:40:44 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 07, 2022, 11:55:21 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 07, 2022, 11:40:29 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 06, 2022, 02:14:46 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 01:59:42 PM

But where is all the Flat Earth  ‘real, plenty, data’ you referred to?

Again, read the post.
It isn't that hard.
Pretending it isn't there wont help you.
You are intentionally choosing to ignore it, and everyone can see that.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 06, 2022, 02:32:39 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 06, 2022, 02:07:49 AM

Please provide the ‘plenty’

The horizon, under normal circumstances, is indistinguishable to the unaided eye from being at eye level.
A flat map of a region of Earth works well for the level of accuracy most people have and need.
Levels, over a quite large area (e.g. 400 m from the source), do not need to be adjusted for curvature.
And so on.

why have you not used any real fact supported flat earth examples in your arguments? why do you keep avoid doing that or answering questions as to why?

Why do you still insist on repeating this lie, when the data/facts are in each post you quote?
Are you planning on ever being honest?

Everyone knows a model needs:-

Are you sure everyone knows that? Or is it just your misrepresentation of a comment by Rajiv?
If you bothered reading what they said it is features used to EVALUATE a model.
These are not requirements for it to be a model. Instead it is a way to evaluate how good a model it is.

1. to be based on reliable observations. ( an impossibility for flat earth)

That is your opinion, which has been refuted by the observations you continue to pretend don't exist.

2. Be able to explain the characteristics of the observations used to formulate it. ( fThat statement can explain nothing as its fictional)

Just like the outdated models of the atom are fictional so they can explain nothing?

So Jack how about explaining what we observe and have actually see and observed is at odds with what you propose?

You appear to be confusing your points. That would be for point 3, not point 2.

3. Be able to explain phenomena that were not used to develop the model. ( As its a fiction it has no relationship with or to reality)

Again, just like the plum pudding model. It was not able to explain a particular phenomenon which wasn't used to develop the model.
Because of that, it is a bad model.
Again, if you wish to claim that this is a requirement for a model, you MUST say that these outdated models of the atom are not models.
But we both know you wont do that.

All this criteria does is allow you to judge how good the model is. Something failing it means it is a bad model, not that it is not a model.

4 Be able to be refined when new, credible, conflicting observations arise. ( As its a fiction it ignores and contradicts all reality)

So yet again you are saying Earth is not part of reality, that horizons don't exist, that buildings don't exist, that water doesn't exist and so on.
There is plenty in the FE fiction which does NOT contradict reality.
There is plenty in reality which does NOT contradict the FE fiction.
Spouting such claims just shows how desperate you are to attack the FE with irrational garbage, as if you don't have any rational arguments against it, as if it is true and the RE model is fiction.

Well Jack there is so much conflicting evidence but lets just deal with the fact that the earth is a sphere! Please explain that.

Just like the outdated models of the atom. There is plenty of conflicting evidence that these models can't explain.
Does that mean they are not models? NO!
Likewise, the FE model can be wrong, and still be a model.

You really are barking, barking up a mythical tree if you imagine there is any sense in this other silly statement you made:-
"But according to your fantasy, because Harry Potter is fictional, King's Cross and England must all be fictional.
If nothing real could ever be associated with something fictional"
No Jack Harry Potter is indeed fictional, and England is indeed real.

Just what is silly about it?
Again, these are your claims:

FE belief is fictional and as a result everything produced supporting it also had to be fictional.

ideas that have no and never had have any real data to base anything on as it’s fictional.

FE is devoid of any facts as everything associated with FE belief is a fiction.

As its a fiction it has no relationship with or to reality
...
As its a fiction it ignores and contradicts all reality

Try applying those claims to Harry Potter and King's Cross Station.
Harry Potter is fictional, and as a result everything produced supporting it (including the existence of King's Cross station) also has to be fictional.
Harry Potter is an idea that has no and never had any real data to base anything on (including King's Cross station) as it's fictional.
As Harry Potter is a fiction, it has no relation with or to reality; meaning King's Cross station, which is part of Harry Potter can have no relationship to reality.
As Harry Potter is fiction, it ignores and contradicts all reality; as Harry Potter has King's Cross station existing, this MUST contradict reality so King's Cross station cannot exist in reality.

The only "silly" thing here are your claims regarding how fiction relates to reality.
In reality, plenty of fiction is inspired by reality, taking key components from reality, relating to reality quite well, and having a lot of reality which doesn't contradict it which instead it based on.

But in your irrational attack on the FE, you have effectively declared that King's Cross station and England cannot exist.
You accepting that Harry Potter is fictional, while King's Cross Station and England are real (yet appear in Harry Potter), just demonstrates that you know you are spouting BS.

We will let the fact go that Harry Potter was conceived and written in Edinburgh in Scotland in various coffee shops less than a mile from where Im currently sitting responding to your lies and garbage.

You mean responding with lies and garabge.
But no, lets stick to the fact that Harry Potter, a work of fiction, has a lot of inspiration from the real world is based a lot on the real world.
Yes, it contains entirely fictional elements, but it has plenty from reality.

No one has ever said that fictional stories could not contain or be based on actual places.

You have, repeatedly, such as by the quotes above.

Go on Jack humor me and provide a link, I must have missed it which is hardly surprising given the quantity of lies and garbage you produce.

I suspect that is just another of your pathetic lies. It is hard to miss given the quote block keeps getting bigger and biggger.
But here you go:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90949.msg2377519#msg2377519

Fiction can often be based on the real world I think that is a true statement with many supporting examples.

And that means the FE CAN be based upon the real world. It being fictional does not preclude this fact.
Even though you have stated the exact opposite several times.

Once more Jack you fail to put together a cohesive argument that is BS free and contains no lies.

No, once more you project your own inadequacies onto others, because you can't handle the fact that you were wrong, yet again, about something to do with the FE. You can't handle the fact that there can be FE models. They don't work to explain all observations, and can be used to demonstrate the FE is wrong, but the mere existence of these models is enough to push you over the edge.