FE is a sad little world.

Deflection from the point of the of the reply because you got called out on your regular bullshit?

You appear to be describing yourself.

As a reminder, you lowlife piece of scum:

The ancients didn't have such trouble, because they were happy for the sun to set for everyone at once, because they were happy believing the entire Earth was just the tiny portion they lived in.

Notice the part about the sun setting for everyone at once?
They didn't need to consider someone in Sydney, New York and London all having a meeting together remotely where the time zones means at least one would be in night.

Travelling those distances, unless you have quite accurate maps, and can carefully measure distance as you travel, ideally using dead reckoning, the shape doesn't matter as much.
But having the sun high in the sky in one location, while it has appeared to set for another is a big issue.

Clocks are arbitrary

Notice how you entirely flee from the issue at hand?
You know you have no chance of honestly and rationally defending your fantasy, so you throw out pathetic lies and insults and deflect at all costs.
I don't need a clock to tell if it is day or night.
If Earth was flat, with the sun remaining above it, the sun could never set.
It would always be day. It would never be night.
The ancient FE models did not have this problem.
They were happy for the sun to go below Earth, which would make it night for everyone.
The modern RE model does not have this problem, because the sun's position relative to you can go below.
But the modern steaming pile of BS that is the modern FE cult, does have this problem, and it is a massive one they can't address.

We see how much of a problem this is with you entirely deflecting from it to try and bring up the divine right of kings.

No, I know how it works and posted it here.

Where did you post it?
I don't see it anywhere.
I see vague BS which doesn't address anything, but no explanation for how it would work on your fantasy.

Don't blame me because your sorry ass doesn't understand how a point on a revolving sphere circling above your head can disappear from your view.

Care to try drawing what this sphere looks like relative to your fantasy Earth?
Because it is clear you are not describing the celestial sphere as understood by everyone else.

Are you suggesting it is a solid sphere?
Is it entirely above, or it is above and below, like the celestial sphere of the ancients?
If it is entirely above it fails to match observations.

Wrong, shit for brains. The sphere doesn't rotate below the earth. That is just some bullshit you try to push here due to the fact you don't understand simple geometry, rotations, and transfigurations.

Quite the opposite.
The celestial sphere of the ancients was centred on Earth.
i.e. Earth was inside the sphere, and this meant as it rotated things went from above Earth to below Earth.

I can observe the sun, and track it over the course of a day. And this appears to follow the path expected for a point on a sphere that is going above and below Earth.
We can go one step further and use an equatorial mount telescope to view a portion of the sky and track it as this hypothetical celestial sphere rotates.
This would place the camera approximately at the centre of this sphere and show the sphere goes above and below the observer.

A great example would be an observer on the equator at the equinox, who observes the sun appear to rise from due east, pass directly overhead and set due west, following a path of a circle centred on them, with the rest of that circle then going below them so at midnight the sun would be directly below them.

That is what simple geometry gets us, and clearly demonstrates the FE fantasy doesn't work.
You lying wont change that.

You, the weak-ass lying scum, wrote:

You are the weak-ass lying scum here.
So this is what the weak-ass lying scum wrote (with context):

Quote from: JackBlack on March 21, 2024, 01:45:29 PM

They didn't need to pretend everything stayed above them.

Who is pretending? Everything above is above.

Using basic geometry, we can follow the sun and see that it goes below us.
i.e. using a cartesian coordinate system centred on us, where up and down is our up and down, we observe the sun go to a vertical position below us.

The ancients fully accepted this, and had the sun set because it went below Earth.

But because that doesn't work with different locations having day and night at different times, weak-ass lying scum like you need to pretend that everything stays above and magic makes it appear to go below.

I know they didn't pretend. They actually knew what was above and remained above them.

Sure, like the Egyptians, who believed when the sun set, it went into the underworld, literally below Earth, where it then travelled underneath Earth to get back to the east to the place it rises.

How is that believing the sun remained above them?

Again, the weak-ass lying scum is YOU!

Your position is so pathetic that you need to lie about the beliefs of ancient people to pretend they believed the sun remained above them, because you can't explain sun sets and night in your fantasy at all.

Your attempt to conflate the two is just a product of your feeble mind and inability to comprehend reality.

No, my successful comparison of the 2 shows how the ancient FE models have significant similarity to the modern RE model.
To go from the RE model to the ancient FE model (with the religious elements removed), take a small portion of Earth, remove the rest, and project all bodies to a point on the celestial sphere.

But the modern FE models pretty much only have "EARTH FLAT" as the connection.

You are the biggest loser of all. And it will remain that way until someone pulls the plug on your machine.

Again, I could never hope to take that title from you.

On the contrary, the practice of transcribing the paths from the celestial sphere above to the flat surface below serves as the most accurate method for travel across long distances, which the ancients did quite frequently. That explains the similarity in complexes found all across the flat earth plane.

No, the most accurate method for travel across long distances is looking at those paths directly on a sphere. Because Earth is a sphere.
But that isn't what the ancient people did.
For the most part, they travelled roads between connected cities, or travelled along the shore line.

If Earth was flat, the most accurate method for travel would be a straight line on a flat map, without any need for the celestial sphere.

Using the sky for timekeeping is a far better explanation.

Celestial navigation is based on a celestial sphere.

Which in turn is based upon Earth being a sphere (roughly).

No celestial navigation is performed utilizing the southern pole.

Yes it is, in the south.
But the big issue here is how does your flat fantasy have a south celestial pole?
How does the north pole star disappear from view?

God, you are stupid.

The portion where the person holds the sextant level.

So where they hold it perpendicular to a line going towards the centre of Earth?
So nothing to do with Earth being flat.

If you understood celestial navigation, you would know it doesn't work for a flat Earth.

It is not a miswording or a lie.
Crux is used because of its position relative to the northern pole.

It is a blatant lie.
Crux is used because of its position relative to the south celestial pole.

No one uses Sigma Octatntis to navigate to the supposed south pole.

No, they use something else to indicate the direction to the south celestial pole.

No one uses Sigma Octatntis to navigate to the supposed south pole.

I've ignored nothing, but I am going to start now by ignoring your stupid bullshit.

??

You keep trying to change the subject with basically lying how navigation in the southern hemisphere works with a sextant.  It’s not based off the celestial South Pole for the southern hemisphere where Polaris isn’t visible because of the earth’s curvature? 

How to find the celestial South Pole makes sense on a globe / sphere.






The celestial South Pole is meaningless on a flat earth

But when traveling in an airplane, you are assuming steady direction and steady speed.

Or small enough changes that they are not noticeable.
Like in the revolving restaurant, which you would use to conclude the restaurant is stationary and the entire Earth is rotating around it.

even if speed never changes, all of the passengers can feel it.

Only if it is significant enough.
If it isn't significant enough, they wont feel it.

And you continue to lie, lie, lie when according to your words, you have basically shown that yes, in fact, there is a sense of motion.

Quite the opposite. Your own words demonstrate that YOU are a liar.
That there is no sense of motion.
That you can be moving quite fast and not sense that motion.
Instead, the best your examples give is a sense of acceleration. But even that is wrong.
What you actually sense is a force being transmitted through you.

Crux is a word that means center or focus.

And it is the name of a constellation used to locate the south celestial pole. Something that shouldn't exist in your fantasy.

"Occupants can be thrown if strapped in." You think it's gonna matter that the plane was traveling 360 mph before, during and after turbulence if it suddenly rises or drops?

Try focusing on the first one "Hardly noticeable to passengers"
What if it was only 0.1 m? or 0.01 m?
Then it is even less noticeable than that.
Eventually you reach a point where it isn't noticeable.
Like in the revolving restaurant where they only notice they are rotating by the view.
Just like we can notice it on Earth by our view of the stars.

I've ignored nothing, but I am going to start now by ignoring your stupid bullshit.

For a celestial South Pole..



This makes sense…



Flat earth makes no sense for a southern celestial pole.

I love it when normal people behave like abnormal flat earthers!

Wishbone and Dataoverlord, if neither of you can bring first hand celestial navigation experience to the forum, you can both at least, admit what sources you are each relying upon.......

Bulmabutt, you can just go back to your bible and dictionary and find us all another little passage to support whatever garbage you are injecting into the proceedings...and another word from your dictionary you have suddenly learned the meaning of.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on March 22, 2024, 05:03:11 AM

Deflection from the point of the of the reply because you got called out on your regular bullshit?

You appear to be describing yourself.

As a reminder, you lowlife piece of scum:

Quote from: JackBlack on March 21, 2024, 01:45:29 PM

The ancients didn't have such trouble, because they were happy for the sun to set for everyone at once, because they were happy believing the entire Earth was just the tiny portion they lived in.

Notice the part about the sun setting for everyone at once?
They didn't need to consider someone in Sydney, New York and London all having a meeting together remotely where the time zones means at least one would be in night.

Travelling those distances, unless you have quite accurate maps, and can carefully measure distance as you travel, ideally using dead reckoning, the shape doesn't matter as much.
But having the sun high in the sky in one location, while it has appeared to set for another is a big issue.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on March 22, 2024, 05:03:11 AM

Clocks are arbitrary

Notice how you entirely flee from the issue at hand?
You know you have no chance of honestly and rationally defending your fantasy, so you throw out pathetic lies and insults and deflect at all costs.
I don't need a clock to tell if it is day or night.
If Earth was flat, with the sun remaining above it, the sun could never set.
It would always be day. It would never be night.
The ancient FE models did not have this problem.
They were happy for the sun to go below Earth, which would make it night for everyone.
The modern RE model does not have this problem, because the sun's position relative to you can go below.
But the modern steaming pile of BS that is the modern FE cult, does have this problem, and it is a massive one they can't address.

We see how much of a problem this is with you entirely deflecting from it to try and bring up the divine right of kings.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on March 22, 2024, 05:03:11 AM

No, I know how it works and posted it here.

Where did you post it?
I don't see it anywhere.
I see vague BS which doesn't address anything, but no explanation for how it would work on your fantasy.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on March 22, 2024, 05:03:11 AM

Don't blame me because your sorry ass doesn't understand how a point on a revolving sphere circling above your head can disappear from your view.

Care to try drawing what this sphere looks like relative to your fantasy Earth?
Because it is clear you are not describing the celestial sphere as understood by everyone else.

Are you suggesting it is a solid sphere?
Is it entirely above, or it is above and below, like the celestial sphere of the ancients?
If it is entirely above it fails to match observations.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on March 22, 2024, 05:03:11 AM

Wrong, shit for brains. The sphere doesn't rotate below the earth. That is just some bullshit you try to push here due to the fact you don't understand simple geometry, rotations, and transfigurations.

Quite the opposite.
The celestial sphere of the ancients was centred on Earth.
i.e. Earth was inside the sphere, and this meant as it rotated things went from above Earth to below Earth.

I can observe the sun, and track it over the course of a day. And this appears to follow the path expected for a point on a sphere that is going above and below Earth.
We can go one step further and use an equatorial mount telescope to view a portion of the sky and track it as this hypothetical celestial sphere rotates.
This would place the camera approximately at the centre of this sphere and show the sphere goes above and below the observer.

A great example would be an observer on the equator at the equinox, who observes the sun appear to rise from due east, pass directly overhead and set due west, following a path of a circle centred on them, with the rest of that circle then going below them so at midnight the sun would be directly below them.

That is what simple geometry gets us, and clearly demonstrates the FE fantasy doesn't work.
You lying wont change that.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on March 22, 2024, 05:03:11 AM

You, the weak-ass lying scum, wrote:

You are the weak-ass lying scum here.
So this is what the weak-ass lying scum wrote (with context):

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on March 22, 2024, 03:46:28 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on March 21, 2024, 01:45:29 PM

They didn't need to pretend everything stayed above them.

Who is pretending? Everything above is above.

Using basic geometry, we can follow the sun and see that it goes below us.
i.e. using a cartesian coordinate system centred on us, where up and down is our up and down, we observe the sun go to a vertical position below us.

The ancients fully accepted this, and had the sun set because it went below Earth.

But because that doesn't work with different locations having day and night at different times, weak-ass lying scum like you need to pretend that everything stays above and magic makes it appear to go below.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on March 22, 2024, 05:03:11 AM

I know they didn't pretend. They actually knew what was above and remained above them.

Sure, like the Egyptians, who believed when the sun set, it went into the underworld, literally below Earth, where it then travelled underneath Earth to get back to the east to the place it rises.

How is that believing the sun remained above them?

Again, the weak-ass lying scum is YOU!

Your position is so pathetic that you need to lie about the beliefs of ancient people to pretend they believed the sun remained above them, because you can't explain sun sets and night in your fantasy at all.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on March 22, 2024, 05:03:11 AM

Your attempt to conflate the two is just a product of your feeble mind and inability to comprehend reality.

No, my successful comparison of the 2 shows how the ancient FE models have significant similarity to the modern RE model.
To go from the RE model to the ancient FE model (with the religious elements removed), take a small portion of Earth, remove the rest, and project all bodies to a point on the celestial sphere.

But the modern FE models pretty much only have "EARTH FLAT" as the connection.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on March 22, 2024, 05:03:11 AM

You are the biggest loser of all. And it will remain that way until someone pulls the plug on your machine.

Again, I could never hope to take that title from you.

aaarge

I hate the term    sun to go below Earth, which would make it night for everyone.

What is happening is, from your location on the Earth, night on the globe, is you are facing away from the Sun, as the Earth rotates, from your location, it goes from night to day, to night in 24 hours

I love it when normal people behave like abnormal flat earthers!



if neither of you can bring first hand celestial navigation experience to the forum, you can both at least, admit what sources you are each relying upon.......

As in like including the captions of the picture I post to flat earthers that don’t pay attention to what is actually post and change the subject anyway? 

Note.  Added.  Sorry I don’t have any material from when I was in the navy regarding celestial navigation and sextant. 

I love it when normal people behave like abnormal flat earthers!

At least I provide something based on fact.

Page from 1943 blue jackets manual I have laying around.



Funny how curvature exists to the world’s navies? 

Another page from the blue jackets manual from 1943



Close up of a specific passage.



You think any flat earther is going to care and acknowledge any practical source that demonstrates the earth is spherical?  Much less if it’s cited?

😂😂😂😂😂

Yes, according to angry globularists, if you don't agree with them in every way on every thing you are a conspiracy quack. But, we are on the FES forums, and we're allowed to think outside their box.

According to what the term climate change denial means. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

It’s your claim that more “glorbularists” than flat earthers fit  that description, but now you’re saying flat earthers should have their own special definition?

Sounds like cheating to me.

Not all conspiracy theories are quackery.  Some turn out to be absolutely real, including the decades of deliberate undermining of climate science to prevent or delay action that would affect certain companies’ bottom line.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 22, 2024, 06:08:43 AM

Yes, according to angry globularists, if you don't agree with them in every way on every thing you are a conspiracy quack. But, we are on the FES forums, and we're allowed to think outside their box.

According to what the term climate change denial means. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

It’s your claim that more “glorbularists” than flat earthers fit  that description, but now you’re saying flat earthers should have their own special definition?

Sounds like cheating to me.

Not all conspiracy theories are quackery.  Some turn out to be absolutely real, including the decades of deliberate undermining of climate science to prevent or delay action that would affect certain companies’ bottom line.

If two globularist climate scientists disagree about the how and why of climate change, which one is  the climate change denier?

I never said FE should have their own special definition. I said the ones who believe in climate change will have different reasons for why and how it is happening.

Life is indeed pointless. It doesn't matter if it's a round earther or flat earther, even without involving the scale of the universe, we're just 1 in 7 billion people. You will die, and nobody will care enough to dwell on it more than a few hours. But still, to think people genuinely believe in flat earth is very concerning. At least, I hope you are not gen z or something. Otherwise, we are truly in deep shite.

If two globularist climate scientists disagree about the how and why of climate change, which one is  the climate change denier?

If one is ignoring the simply vast amount of evidence we have for how and why it’s happening, they would be the denier. 

I doubt you’d find such a person these days though.  Even the well known Climate Contrarians, like Judith Curry and Richard Lindzen (who took the oil barons’ shill money) never disputed the basic mechanisms.

I never said FE should have their own special definition. I said the ones who believe in climate change will have different reasons for why and how it is happening.

And that would fit the normal definition of climate change denial.

How? If people believe the climate is changing how are they denying that climate is changing?

How? If people believe the climate is changing how are they denying that climate is changing?

Because "climate change" is really a short form of anthropogenic climate change, i.e. human actions changing the environment.
So if someone says they accept the climate is changing, but says it is just part of Earth's natural cycles, then they are denying climate change.
If they are saying it is part of Earth's natural cycles, then it is really the same climate, just a longer term part of it. (I don't think anyone would say going from summer to winter is climate change).

If they are saying aliens are doing it, then they might be classified as not deniers.

Some FEers might think humans are causing climate change, but the firmament is trapping the greenhouse gasses, or the dome. That's what I was trying to say to Unconvinced. They aren't denying human responsibility. Obviously, there will be FE who think it's part of earth's natural cycle and fit the "climate change denier" definition.

Anyway, I think the penguins are responsible!

To say that climate is affected by CO2 is to make the atmosphere far more reactive than it is.

You're basing such models on depictions of Venus. But we have a thermosphere filled with electromagnetic fields. And the firmament. If you're wondering why I mentioned electromagnetic fields, it's because real science shows that you can split molecules with an electrical charge. Seriously, do your worst, air pollution.

This is before we get into photosynthesis.

I am far more concerned with water and land pollution than air pollution.

To say that climate is affected by CO2 is to make the atmosphere far more reactive than it is.

You're basing such models on depictions of Venus. But we have a thermosphere filled with electromagnetic fields. And the firmament. If you're wondering why I mentioned electromagnetic fields, it's because real science shows that you can split molecules with an electrical charge. Seriously, do your worst, air pollution.

This is before we get into photosynthesis.

I am far more concerned with water and land pollution than air pollution.

Have you heard of greenhouse effect? It's when gases like CO2 traps the heat of the sun light and prevents it from escaping to the outer space. It increases the planar temperature of the earth, hence the term "planar warming"

P.S. "real science" shows that earth is round

To say that climate is affected by CO2 is to make the atmosphere far more reactive than it is.

You're basing such models on depictions of Venus.

No, it is based upon a few things, which boil down to black body radiation, and the properties of CO2.
We don't need Venus at all.

If you have an object, that is being illuminated by some light, it will have an equilibrium temperature where the temperature makes it emit as much energy as it absorbs.
With Earth, that means it is in equilibrium with the light from the sun heating it and the light it giving off cooling it.
If you put CO2 all around it, that then absorbs a bunch of light Earth is emitting, and then re-radiates it in all directions, including towards Earth, which means the amount of radiation leaving Earth is reduced.
That increases Earth's temperature until it achieves a new balance.

it's because real science shows that you can split molecules with an electrical charge.

Real science shows that Earth is round and that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere affects the climate.

I am far more concerned with water and land pollution than air pollution.

Of course you are. Because that is what big oil wants you to focus on.

Some FEers might think humans are causing climate change, but the firmament is trapping the greenhouse gasses, or the dome. That's what I was trying to say to Unconvinced. They aren't denying human responsibility. Obviously, there will be FE who think it's part of earth's natural cycle and fit the "climate change denier" definition.

Anyway, I think the penguins are responsible!

Yeah I get what you’ve saying.  Probably a bit harsh to lump people who still agree with the man made drivers in with those who don’t.  But I do find it strange if many flat earthers accept what climate scientists are saying about it while rejecting a very key part of all the (round) earth sciences it’s based on- meteorology, geology, atmospheric physics, etc, etc.

If we think that Earth is a snowglobe, then naturally its overseer must be able to care for it somehow.

God intended this dome to be set up like a butterfly preserve, a beautiful world where humans anf animals can exist together.

Those who hate God have set it up like a prison. You have to answer for the suffering of other people.

Now, regarding the firmament, what they tell you abour atmosphere in conventional science that the upper atmosphere has an electromagnetic current and layers of heat and cold, bur the air is too thin.

This is correct, but I think there's a region that is somewhat thicker. That is, wall-like thicker. The firmament is made of electromagnetism and frozen oxygen, or to put it more classically, it's made of the four elements. Frozen (water) oxygen (air) and electro(fire)magnetism(earth). This creates a force field that not only solid, but pulses as though alive.

In a science class, we learned that you can split molecules by running electrical current through it. What so you think would happen to say CO₂ if you chopped it apart? You'd have carbon separated from oxygen. The carbon settles back to Earth, the oxygen is air again. No matter what pollution you send, the firmament purifies it.

Have you heard of greenhouse effect? It's when gases like CO2 traps the heat of the sun light and prevents it from escaping to the outer space. It increases the planar temperature of the earth, hence the term "planar warming"

Yes, I lived in the 80s. Have you heard that your teachers don't know what they are talking about and are peddling whatever the state tells them to teach?

No, because students aren't taught that their teachers arw cogs in a control system. Just they aren't taught that when they are children, they are slapped around by their doctor, not to get them to breathe but to get them to accept the state and not God as the ultimate authority in their life,and that most of their parents sign a "birth certificate." Do you know what birth certificates are? Well, big hint, they grab the child by its feet and make it stamp its print. The only other time individuals are printed is when they are bonded in some way. They had me get my prints when I was to be a teacher, and they take your prints when you are arrested. This is a SLAVE contract, an agreement of the parents that the child will serve the state. In return for their service, the child will be taught at schools (where they learn the slave theory of Earth, known as RE), then they will be expected to learn to be productive members of society. That is, slaves who work until they die, never getting anywhere because of taxes.

You can expect to be taught all kinds of things by your "teachers" but the most important thing you learn is this:

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.  By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,  and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

If your teacher teaches something that is not of God, you have every right to reject it. We have burned wood for about a million years. Before that, trees burned themselves for several million years. Unless we burn all oil at once, it won't make a noticeable effect.

If you put CO2 all around it, that then absorbs a bunch of light Earth is emitting, and then re-radiates it in all directions, including towards Earth, which means the amount of radiation leaving Earth is reduced.
That increases Earth's temperature until it achieves a new balance

Plants convert CO₂. So does the firmament. In the latter cause, it is purified back into the Earth. In the former, it is trapped as nutrients (usually sugars) in the plant. When you burn plants, those plants release carbon. Likewise when you cut alot of wood, those realease carbon. But there is a whole cycle. CO₂ actually gets used up.

You have an interesting theory about how this gas stores heat. But you've done what is called begging the question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion.

You're acting as if we know that light is trapped by CO₂. But you don't actually know that, do you?

I do. I know CO₂ does trap heat, thanks to the "clearly not planned" Canadian forest fire blamed on climate change (more likely culprits? Forest mismanagement or outright arson). The other summer, yes, it was kinda hot and stuffy for a few weeks.

But you know what happened? The forests soaked up all that smog... until Biden cut down some of these to make room for solar plants, and more of them to actually burn (since EV need real fuel not imaginary).



If you're concerned about the environment, there are no easy answers. One answer is that having more forests and less "plants" (by that I mean these solar plants) we have more carbon dioxide converted into oxygen. We still have to correctly manage our forests though, so they don't develop forest fires.

If we think that Earth

Ever figured out how to more effectively design heavier than air aircraft by ignoring center of gravity and replace it with buoyancy.

Ever completed that calculation how long it takes a ball from rest to drop 10 feet by ignoring gravity and using buoyancy? 

Propulsion, aerodynamics, spaced out density, and alot of empty cabin and cargo space.

Planes overall are extremely heavy, but that weight is spaced out over a large surface area. They also move fast enough to generate lift, and their wings are well designed to glide.

Hot air balloons and helium balloons fly based on buoyancy. Planes account for buoyancy by not being totally overloaded, but they use other rules of physics to fly.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 27, 2024, 03:09:38 PM

Some FEers might think humans are causing climate change, but the firmament is trapping the greenhouse gasses, or the dome. That's what I was trying to say to Unconvinced. They aren't denying human responsibility. Obviously, there will be FE who think it's part of earth's natural cycle and fit the "climate change denier" definition.

Anyway, I think the penguins are responsible!

Yeah I get what you’ve saying.  Probably a bit harsh to lump people who still agree with the man made drivers in with those who don’t.  But I do find it strange if many flat earthers accept what climate scientists are saying about it while rejecting a very key part of all the (round) earth sciences it’s based on- meteorology, geology, atmospheric physics, etc, etc.

I try to think of it in the Zetetic way. You can observe the climate, you can observe pollution, you can observe that humans create pollution, etc. idk. I think you can agree with the conclusions of scientists, and disagree with some of the mechanisms of how they reached the conclusion. Obviously geology would be different, but some atmolayer physics could be the same. lol

Propulsion, aerodynamics, spaced out density, and alot of empty cabin and cargo space.

Planes overall are extremely heavy, but that weight is spaced out over a large surface area. They also move fast enough to generate lift, and their wings are well designed to glide.

Hot air balloons and helium balloons fly based on buoyancy. Planes account for buoyancy by not being totally overloaded, but they use other rules of physics to fly.

You are avoiding the purpose of this thread bulmabriefs144.  One of the aspects of a spherical earth is to accurately predict our reality such as tides and the time it takes a ball to drop a specific amount of feet.

FE is less useful in predicting our reality than physics 101. 

If we think that Earth is a snowglobe, then naturally its overseer must be able to care for it somehow.

Unless it just wants it sitting on a shelf and shakes it occasionally.

God intended this dome to be set up like a butterfly preserve, a beautiful world where humans anf animals can exist together.

Based on what?
Your hopes and dreams?
If your god made this place, then it seems more likely that it wanted to make animals (including humans) and just life in general to be actively hostile towards each other.
We see this with so many carnivores existing and eating other animals. We see this with parasites.

Those who hate God have set it up like a prison. You have to answer for the suffering of other people.

Quite the opposite.
Those who are so heavily brainwashed into suffering from Stockholm syndrome with their imagination believe their god is good, even though everything shows otherwise.
Those who recognise that any god that exists either doesn't give a damn about us or is actively hostile to us.
This doesn't mean we hate your imaginary fiend. We just aren't as deluded into thinking it is as good as you have been.

This is correct, but I think there's a region that is somewhat thicker. That is, wall-like thicker. The firmament is made of electromagnetism and frozen oxygen, or to put it more classically, it's made of the four elements. Frozen (water) oxygen (air) and electro(fire)magnetism(earth).

So you are clinging to archaic concepts of 4 elements, even though that has been refuted so many times it isn't funny?
Frozen oxygen is just solid oxygen. It doesn't contain water. Water contains oxygen.

But this causes a problem for you. Solid oxygen is more dense than gaseous oxygen. So considering you believe in magical buoyancy, why doesn't the solid oxygen fall down? What is supporting this hypothetical dome of yours of which there is absolutely no evidence for?

In a science class, we learned that you can split molecules by running electrical current through it. What so you think would happen to say CO₂ if you chopped it apart?

You would create highly energetic particles which would likely go on to react with something else.
e.g. this carbon ion is likely going to react with oxygen present in the atmosphere.

No matter what pollution you send, the firmament purifies it.

Then why have the levels of CO² in the atmosphere been rising?
Why have the levels of dissolved CO2 been rising in the ocean, leading to ocean acidification and the death of coral?

Have you heard that your teachers don't know what they are talking about and are peddling whatever the state tells them to teach?

Yes, it is crap said by conspiracy nuts like you that need to do whatever they can to reject reality.
It is also slightly supported by completely shit teachers that really shouldn't be teaching. But that doesn't negate the good teachers that actually explain the evidence for things which allows students a much better understanding and could easily see through your crap.
Shit teachers teaching things poorly doesn't make that thing they are teaching false.

If a crap math teacher just tells you that (a+b)*(a-b) = a^2-b^2 without being able to explain it, does that make it false?
No.

Notice how instead of trying to refute the statement at hand, you instead try insulting teachers to pretend that means what they are saying is wrong?
That shows you can't refute the argument.

Do you know what birth certificates are?

A record of a person's birth. Used to do things like prove the child is a citizen of the country, and the age of the child.

Well, big hint, they grab the child by its feet and make it stamp its print.

No, they don't.
That is quite rare.

The only place I have heard of doing it is the US.
And that wasn't actually taking it for the birth certificate, but more to show the identify of the baby to prevent things like careless nurses swapping babies and kidnapping.

But again, notice how you go off on insane BS rather than addressing the issues?

You can expect to be taught all kinds of things by your "teachers" but the most important thing you learn is this:
[religious BS]

And how do you know that wasn't from a false prophet?

If your teacher teaches something that is not of God, you have every right to reject it.

You have every right to reject reality.
And people have every right to call out that delusional BS.

We have burned wood for about a million years.

Notice they key part, WOOD!
Not oil. Not coal.
Again, this is cyclic.
The CO₂ is absorbed by the wood within recent time and then released again, to then be absorbed by another tree and so on.
This is stable.

Oil and coal are not.
The carbon in oil and coal have been stored by trees over 10s of millions of years, and we are burning through it at a much faster rate.

Unless we burn all oil at once, it won't make a noticeable effect.

Wrong again.
Unless you burn it at a comparable rate to trees absorbing it, and make sure those trees remain never to release the carbon, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere will rise.

Quote

If you put CO2 all around it, that then absorbs a bunch of light Earth is emitting, and then re-radiates it in all directions, including towards Earth, which means the amount of radiation leaving Earth is reduced.
That increases Earth's temperature until it achieves a new balance

Plants convert CO₂.

Which does NOTHING to address that fact.
The fact is that the levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere are rising.
Plants do not magically just take in all the extra CO2.

So does the firmament.

You mean the magical thing you cannot show exists at all?
Stick to things shown to exist in reality.

You have an interesting theory about how this gas stores heat. But you've done what is called begging the question.

No, I haven't.

Again, it is a fact that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are rising.
It is a fact that CO2 does absorb IR radiation and re-emit it in all directions.
It is a fact that the temperature of a body is based upon an equilibrium between energy coming in and energy going out.

None of this is begging the question.
It showing what the facts are and showing the conclusion of those facts.

You're acting as if we know that light is trapped by CO₂. But you don't actually know that, do you?

We DO know that.
It is simple spectroscopy/physics.

But you know what happened? The forests soaked up all that smog

No. Forests are not magic that just suck up everything.

If you're concerned about the environment, there are no easy answers.

There is one quite simple answer - stop burning fossil fuels.
Convert to renewable or nuclear.

One answer is that having more forests and less "plants" (by that I mean these solar plants) we have more carbon dioxide converted into oxygen.

No, it doesn't.
That is only true in a vacuum, where the alternative is nothing to replace that power.
When you are still needing to use that power for something, the question then becomes where is that power coming from?
Is it coming from burning fossil fuels?
If so, then how much CO₂ is that producing? Are those trees capable of absorbing all that?
With that just being stored, rather than cutting those trees down to burn, or letting them decompose?
If not, then you are increasing the amount of CO₂, not reducing it.
The simple way to think about it is how much CO₂ are those trees absorbing, vs how much CO₂ will be released to produce the same power from the solar farm in a fossil fuel based power plant?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 18, 2024, 06:49:58 AM

Propulsion, aerodynamics, spaced out density, and alot of empty cabin and cargo space.

Planes overall are extremely heavy, but that weight is spaced out over a large surface area. They also move fast enough to generate lift, and their wings are well designed to glide.

Hot air balloons and helium balloons fly based on buoyancy. Planes account for buoyancy by not being totally overloaded, but they use other rules of physics to fly.

You are avoiding the purpose of this thread bulmabriefs144.  One of the aspects of a spherical earth is to accurately predict our reality such as tides and the time it takes a ball to drop a specific amount of feet.

FE is less useful in predicting our reality than physics 101.

If physics 101 were true, yes.

But physics says (as a blanket statement) that an object thrown and an object dropped fall to the ground at the same time.

They say this statement, and the people learning it think that because a smart person said it, so it must be true.

Honestly, I think the person testing this was too busy fumbling with a timer and two objects, and the second time (they hired someone to work the timer), they were too distracted to check. I dropped an empty plastic bottle, and it hit the ground at 2 seconds. I threw it across the room, and it took about 3.5 seconds. The same time? No, that's a guideline not a rule.

You don't "predict" reality. You test reality. You test reality, in order to keep science what you know, not what other people told you. In terms of tides, you absolutely have not predicted reality. I've looked at tide charts.
https://www.tide-forecast.com/
Were the moon really in charge of tides, we would expect the highest tide to be when the moon is full. This would be when the moon is closest to your side of the water on this supposed spherical Earth, right? Welp, full moon is the 23 of Apr, and the highest level there is 2.03 about a day later. Settled, right? Nope! A day after the new moon, the highest level is 2.35 ft!

The explanation given for this by so-called scientists? "The moon creates a bulge on both sides of Earth."


If we were looking to use the science we were taught to predict things, we would be totally wrong. That's just this lunar phase. I've seen lunar phases in some months where the highest tide is during one of the quarters. There is literally nothing about moon phases that helps predict anything about tides. You predict tides from previous tides, which do have a regular cycle.

So ummm, 0 for 2? Nice job, though.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on April 18, 2024, 09:32:17 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 18, 2024, 06:49:58 AM

Propulsion, aerodynamics, spaced out density, and alot of empty cabin and cargo space.

Planes overall are extremely heavy, but that weight is spaced out over a large surface area. They also move fast enough to generate lift, and their wings are well designed to glide.

Hot air balloons and helium balloons fly based on buoyancy. Planes account for buoyancy by not being totally overloaded, but they use other rules of physics to fly.

You are avoiding the purpose of this thread bulmabriefs144.  One of the aspects of a spherical earth is to accurately predict our reality such as tides and the time it takes a ball to drop a specific amount of feet.

FE is less useful in predicting our reality than physics 101.

If physics 101 were true, yes.

But physics says (as a blanket statement) that an object thrown and an object dropped fall to the ground at the same time.

They say this statement, and the people learning it think that because a smart person said it, so it must be true.

Honestly, I think the person testing this was too busy fumbling with a timer and two objects, and the second time (they hired someone to work the timer), they were too distracted to check. I dropped an empty plastic bottle, and it hit the ground at 2 seconds. I threw it across the room, and it took about 3.5 seconds. The same time? No, that's a guideline not a rule.

You don't "predict" reality. You test reality. You test reality, in order to keep science what you know, not what other people told you. In terms of tides, you absolutely have not predicted reality. I've looked at tide charts.
https://www.tide-forecast.com/
Were the moon really in charge of tides, we would expect the highest tide to be when the moon is full. This would be when the moon is closest to your side of the water on this supposed spherical Earth, right? Welp, full moon is the 23 of Apr, and the highest level there is 2.03 about a day later. Settled, right? Nope! A day after the new moon, the highest level is 2.35 ft!

The explanation given for this by so-called scientists? "The moon creates a bulge on both sides of Earth."


If we were looking to use the science we were taught to predict things, we would be totally wrong. That's just this lunar phase. I've seen lunar phases in some months where the highest tide is during one of the quarters. There is literally nothing about moon phases that helps predict anything about tides. You predict tides from previous tides, which do have a regular cycle.

So ummm, 0 for 2? Nice job, though.

Buldustbriefs144, there is an old saying that "bull" makes the world go around. It's ironic then that you call yourself, "bul" and you try in vain to make the world go flat with your ridiculous flat earth bull dust.

You test reality so you can predict reality, bulduster!

The moon and Earth's tides is more complex than you think it is. The bulge of the tide you speak of, also happens on the opposite of the Earth, to where the moon is. Gravity again, is the explanation.

The moon is in charge of tides and you haven't properly looked at the science behind it. For Pete's sake, are there no libraries near you, where you can borrow library books on science and physics? Aside from arrogance, you have a healthy heaping of being poorly educated.

Murica! I done saw a picture of it.