Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?

Quote from: JackBlack on November 25, 2024, 12:20:06 PM

Quote from: Torve on November 25, 2024, 07:26:45 AM

What is your point, mr. Jack?

Don't try to use a thread to provide an example of FEers fleeing a topic, when YOU changed the topic.

The one thing has got nothing to do with the other in this instance.

Just what are you trying to prove by linking to that thread?

It was meant to be a discussion on the solar eclipse.
You then decided to entirely change it to a discussion on the entirely useless and non-final "final experiment".

At no point do I see Oden attempting to flee the topic or "diverting the discussion from FE to the Heliocentric model"
Just where do you think they are?

At no point do I see Oden attempting to flee the topic or "diverting the discussion from FE to the Heliocentric model"
Just where do you think they are?

Rly.

Did you not observe any instance where said contributor introduces the Heliocentric model where the topic refers to the shape of the earth?

The only reason for this hypothesis is that FEers are more frequently heard attacking the "heliocentric model" rather than the "round earth model" or synonyms. Heliocentrism of course has nothing as such to do with the shape of the earth. However, the opposing geocentric model of the universe, which was disproved some 300-500 years ago, is a lot less difficult heresy to defend than FE. FEers have been ridiculed and showed up so much lately that it might be testing the endurance of some FEers and they may be considering migrating to geocentrism, which doesn't have evidence against it that is obvious to the everyday person like FE has.

Flat Earth believers have long faced ridicule and criticism from the mainstream scientific community. As a result, many have shifted their focus from public debates to more theoretical and philosophical discussions. This doesn't mean they are abandoning their beliefs, but rather reflects the difficulty of proving such a controversial view when the mainstream narrative overwhelmingly supports a round Earth. The challenges faced by flat earthers are not only intellectual. Many encounter social rejection, character assassination, and even threats to their safety. This is why the community has become more cautious and less visible in the media, despite continuing to advocate for their views.

The truth about the shape of the Earth remains unclear in many ways. While there are several pieces of evidence that suggest the Earth may be flat, these are often dismissed or overlooked by mainstream science. Despite centuries of observations and research that support the spherical Earth model, there is still no definitive proof that can conclusively settle the debate. Without the ability to leave Earth's atmosphere and gather irrefutable evidence, it is difficult for anyone to claim certainty. Those who continue to defend the flat Earth model face skepticism and mockery, and in a society that tends to silence dissenting views, it is incredibly challenging to gain a platform. Appearing in the media is like wearing a coat of fire, and no one wants to wear it. The issue isn't just about the Earth's shape; it’s about the broader consequences of questioning widely accepted knowledge in a world that values conformity.

Rly.

Did you not observe any instance where said contributor introduces the Heliocentric model where the topic refers to the shape of the earth?

So you meant a pointless semantic game.
For the most part on this site there are 2 main ideas - a geocentric flat Earth and a heliocentric round Earth.
On this site, to most people, geocentric model and FE model can be used interchangeably.
Likewise, heliocentric model and round earth model can be used interchangeably.


Especially when you are discussing events like a solar eclipse and the mainstream model, it is quite easy to make the link between them and use them interchangeably.

As soon as you made it clear you wanted to use those terms differently, such that HC would not necessarily be RE and vice versa, they clarified.
Their point remains the same. That you can make observations of past eclipses and use the pattern to predict future eclipses without needing a specific model.

So no, that is not a flat Earther diverting the discussion from the flat Earth to the heliocentric model.

Meanwhile, you deciding to go entirely off track to the utterly useless "final experiment" is a clear diversion.

but rather reflects the difficulty of proving such a controversial view when the mainstream narrative overwhelmingly supports a round Earth.

It isn't simply a mainstream narrative.
It is also the mountains of evidence supporting it.

The challenges faced by flat earthers are not only intellectual. Many encounter social rejection, character assassination, and even threats to their safety.

I'm yet to see any actual threats to their safety.
It isn't character assassination, it is character suicide. They do it to themselves.
That social rejection is entirely reasonable given what they are believing, without anything substantiative to justify their position.

The truth about the shape of the Earth remains unclear in many ways.

While the exact shape is unclear, the overall shape of an oblate spheroid is abundantly clear to anyone honest and intelligent enough to go looking.

While there are several pieces of evidence that suggest the Earth may be flat

Only in the sense of starting with absolutely no idea of what the shape is and finding these observations compatible with the idea of a flat Earth.
If instead you are trying to have evidence be able to distinguish between a flat or round Earth, there is none supporting a flat Earth. The best you get is not being able to tell.

Despite centuries of observations and research that support the spherical Earth model, there is still no definitive proof that can conclusively settle the debate.

There is definitive proof. Plenty of it.
But that doesn't stop people just outright rejecting it.

To some people (like you) no proof will be enough.
It will be dismissed as fake, or ignored, or convoluted explanations will be made up to try to explain it away.

Without the ability to leave Earth's atmosphere and gather irrefutable evidence

That has been done.
It doesn't stop people like you dismissing it as fake.

Those who continue to defend the flat Earth model face skepticism and mockery

As they deserve.

The issue isn't just about the Earth's shape; it’s about the broader consequences of questioning widely accepted knowledge in a world that values conformity.

No, it is about rejecting something based upon mountains of evidence to replace it with something which simply doesn't work to explain reality and which would require a massive GLOBAL conspiracy with so many people it isn't funny, for no real purpose.

It isn't simply a mainstream narrative.
It is also the mountains of evidence supporting it.

Oh, those "mountains of evidence" you speak of are a bit hard to see, aren't they? Do we all have to accept what we "can't see" as evidence? The sky is flat, the horizon always looks the same. Are we supposed to buy a telescope to see those mountains of evidence, or are our eyes just broken? 

'm yet to see any actual threats to their safety.
It isn't character assassination, it is character suicide. They do it to themselves.
That social rejection is entirely reasonable given what they are believing, without anything substantiative to justify their position.

Yes, we've seen those threats, but you prefer to ignore them. The social rejection of flat earthers is just a "let's judge instead of research" approach. But hey, maybe it's easier to accept the "seen" world than to question it, right? After all, a flat Earth seems like something everyone already knows!

While the exact shape is unclear, the overall shape of an oblate spheroid is abundantly clear to anyone honest and intelligent enough to go looking.

Let’s try saying "oblate spheroid" ourselves! Observations clearly show that you can't see that shape, whether you're looking from above or walking along a straight line. Just lift your eyes a bit and see what that "curvature" really is! 

Only in the sense of starting with absolutely no idea of what the shape is and finding these observations compatible with the idea of a flat Earth.
If instead you are trying to have evidence be able to distinguish between a flat or round Earth, there is none supporting a flat Earth. The best you get is not being able to tell.

Exactly, here’s the thing: the “science” you talk about tells us to blindly follow it, but observations don’t lie. If we trust our eyes, we see a flat Earth. If you keep claiming a round Earth but fail to show solid evidence, then maybe it’s time to adjust the lens we’re using. What if the world you’re seeing isn’t the whole picture? 

There is definitive proof. Plenty of it.
But that doesn't stop people just outright rejecting it.

"A alaim of Definitive proof" doesn’t mean we have to accept what’s fed to us. Just because something is "claimed proven" doesn’t mean we’re all blind to the fact that there’s a lot of "questionable" science behind it. There could be a reason we’re not all on the same page here. Maybe the truth is simpler than all those complicated "proofs" you’re talking about. 

That has been done.
It doesn't stop people like you dismissing it as fake.

Yes, they’ve "left the atmosphere" alright! But with all these "space missions" being so "suspicious," it’s easy to see how people might question them. "Mars landings," "moon landings," all those "pictures" — are we really supposed to believe all that? Maybe we’re just seeing a carefully curated version of reality.

As they deserve.

Yes, everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but dismissing a complex question like this as "deserved" mockery is a bit much, don't you think? Maybe it's less about ridicule and more about a deep belief in what we observe. Maybe "character assassination" is just a side effect of this belief war.

No, it is about rejecting something based upon mountains of evidence to replace it with something which simply doesn't work to explain reality and which would require a massive GLOBAL conspiracy with so many people it isn't funny, for no real purpose.

Ah, the "global conspiracy" card! You can’t deny that not everything we see fits the narrative we're told. Maybe if the Earth was flat, things would work more naturally without needing a complex theory to explain it. Instead of all these convoluted explanations, why not just look around and see the world for what it really is? The Earth is flat, but those glasses you’re wearing might be hiding the truth. 

This is not a real world, Jack. It’s a simulation run by a psycho. Here, you can claim anything you want, and you can’t truly prove anything. It provides us with insufficient and contradictory data and sadistically enjoys watching us argue. When I argue with you, it sadistically enjoys this, and I don’t want to give it that satisfaction. But you’re not helping me with this at all. You can’t see the whole picture, Jack, you can’t see the whole picture. To see the big picture, you need to step outside the frame. When you do this, I think you're a bot because you can never truly understand me. To be able to do this, you need to have a real soul. Many experiments show that reality is altered by the observer. Who observes a reality shapes that reality.

In this regard, Jack, I have started to think that the reality in your world is that the Earth is round. I can accept this. But for me to do so, you also need to understand that the reality in my world is that the Earth is flat. I hope this works.

Quote from: Torve on November 09, 2024, 05:11:07 PM

The only reason for this hypothesis is that FEers are more frequently heard attacking the "heliocentric model" rather than the "round earth model" or synonyms. Heliocentrism of course has nothing as such to do with the shape of the earth. However, the opposing geocentric model of the universe, which was disproved some 300-500 years ago, is a lot less difficult heresy to defend than FE. FEers have been ridiculed and showed up so much lately that it might be testing the endurance of some FEers and they may be considering migrating to geocentrism, which doesn't have evidence against it that is obvious to the everyday person like FE has.

Flat Earth believers have long faced ridicule and criticism from the mainstream scientific community. As a result, many have shifted their focus from public debates to more theoretical and philosophical discussions. This doesn't mean they are abandoning their beliefs, but rather reflects the difficulty of proving such a controversial view when the mainstream narrative overwhelmingly supports a round Earth. The challenges faced by flat earthers are not only intellectual. Many encounter social rejection, character assassination, and even threats to their safety. This is why the community has become more cautious and less visible in the media, despite continuing to advocate for their views.

The truth about the shape of the Earth remains unclear in many ways. While there are several pieces of evidence that suggest the Earth may be flat, these are often dismissed or overlooked by mainstream science. Despite centuries of observations and research that support the spherical Earth model, there is still no definitive proof that can conclusively settle the debate. Without the ability to leave Earth's atmosphere and gather irrefutable evidence, it is difficult for anyone to claim certainty. Those who continue to defend the flat Earth model face skepticism and mockery, and in a society that tends to silence dissenting views, it is incredibly challenging to gain a platform. Appearing in the media is like wearing a coat of fire, and no one wants to wear it. The issue isn't just about the Earth's shape; it’s about the broader consequences of questioning widely accepted knowledge in a world that values conformity.

GPS prof of GLOBE , no more need be sed

Oh, those "mountains of evidence" you speak of are a bit hard to see, aren't they?

Everything is hard to see when you keep your eyes closed to avoid seeing it.

The sky is flat

What?
Just what observation are you making that shows the sky is flat?

the horizon

Should not exist if Earth is flat.
Take a look at a flat table. Do you see a horizon? No, just the edge.
Take a look at a ball. Do you see a horizon? Yes. One which behaves just like the RE horizon.

But there is plenty more.
Look at how the horizon changes. If you get higher the horizon gets further away, and lower.
Look at how objects going over the horizon appear to sink, disappearing from the bottom up.
Look at the stars and the moon. How they appear the same regardless of where you are, just in a different position in the sky. In effect, if you take the sky as a large sphere of celestial objects like the sun and moon and stars, then it looks the same regardless of where you are on Earth, just rotated.
Look at how we have both a north and south celestial pole which stars appear to rotate around.
This also includes things like how the sun and moon appear to set instead of just appearing to travel off into the distance and shrink to a point.

Countless observations almost anyone can make shows beyond any sane doubt that Earth is round.
The only way out is if you choose to ignore the majority of the world and pretend there is only one time zone, with everyone seeing the same thing at the same time.

You then have the more technologically complicated ones, like GPS, where anyone can hypothetical code a receiver and use it to determine their position on Earth, using RE math and satellites in space.
You then have the countless photos from those satellites in space.

And there are things like flight paths, which when taken collectively, only make sense on a round Earth. And no, suggesting airlines are operating fake flights and murdering everyone who takes them and dumping the bodies in the ocean is not a sane response to that.

or are our eyes just broken?

Not your eyes, something else.

Yes, we've seen those threats, but you prefer to ignore them.

I am yet to see any.

The social rejection of flat earthers is just a "let's judge instead of research" approach.

No, it is "the research has already been done, and it shows they are wrong, yet they ignore it all, often claiming massive conspiracies which they cannot substantiate" approach.

Generally the ridicule and rejection comes from people either claiming it is flat with literally nothing to back them up, or instead going on a rant about a conspiracy, or just saying things which are obviously false.

Let’s try saying "oblate spheroid" ourselves! Observations clearly show that you can't see that shape, whether you're looking from above or walking along a straight line. Just lift your eyes a bit and see what that "curvature" really is!

You mean how we can lift our eyes and see the horizon, and see objects appear to rise from the horizon as we approach, just like we would expect when going around a corner, and nothing like we would expect when travelling in a straight line.

Exactly, here’s the thing: the “science” you talk about tells us to blindly follow it

No it doesn't.
That is the "science" Timmy talks about.
I talk about science that uses observations.
Note that this is not simply trusting your eyes, but ideally using instruments to take measurements, because the human eye isn't that great at lots of things.

For example, when machinists are making a high precision part, they don't simply use their eyes to say it looks good. Instead they use a variety of measuring instruments like indicating dials and micrometers to measure the part.
That is because something can "look straight" or "look flat" which really just means you cannot easily see the deviation from a perfect straight line or flat surface, but the instruments clearly show it.

Likewise, it involves understanding the uncertainty of measurements, and if that uncertainty is great enough to reject the null hypothesis or distinguish between two hypotheses.

For example, say you want to determine if the surface of water is flat or curved, so you set up a rectangular pool, roughly 1 m long, and then obtain a straight edge to use as a reference, and measure the change in distance from that straight edge to the surface of the water.
You don't simply say "I can't detect any change so it must be flat".
Instead, you first need to determine what the change should be if it is round (that would be 19.6 nm from the centre to the edge).
You then need to determine the uncertainty in your measurement.
How straight is that "straight" edge? This includes both manufacturing tolerances as well any deformations due to changes in temperature and sagging based upon how it is supported.
And how accurate and precise and consistent is your measuring device?
Lets say it is a steel ruler, with the water 1 cm away. Steel has a coefficient of thermal expansion of roughly 10^-5 per K. So if the temperature changes by a single degree, that 1 cm would stretch or shrink by 100 nm, which is roughly 5 times the distance you are trying to see. So that also raises the question of how consistent the temperature is.

Doing that honestly, you will likely find for that experiment you cannot tell the difference because the uncertainty is too great.

As a different experiment, say you go to the top of a tall mountain, with a simple device to determine where level is, like a fish tank which you half fill with water., and then make some lines on the side.
If Earth is flat, then the surface should appear to continue to rise forever, but if Earth is round, there should be a dip to the horizon which can be calculated, and with a high enough mountain, it is easy to show that dip, but only with that level reference.

If we trust our eyes, we see a flat Earth.

HOW?
FEers love claiming this, yet they cannot explain how.
Just HOW are you seeing a flat Earth.
What visual observation are you making which indicates it is flat?
Again, importantly, is this showing that it is flat rather than round with a radius of roughly 6371 km? Or is it merely showing it is consistent with a flat surface while also allowing it to be consistent with a round surface?
If the former, what observation is this?
If the latter, saying that honestly is saying you can't tell.

"A alaim of Definitive proof" doesn’t mean we have to accept what’s fed to us.

The point I am making is that people rejecting it because they don't like it does not mean it is not definitive.
Definitive is not subject to personal opinion.
An honest examination of the mountains of evidence is clear definitive proof that Earth is round.
(At least for common usage of the words, if you go deep into philosophy, there is nothing that would ever constitute definitive proof for anything).

doesn’t mean we’re all blind to the fact that there’s a lot of "questionable" science behind it.

That isn't a fact.
That is an empty claim by FEers because they don't like the conclusion.
Just what is "questionable" about it? The fact it gives a conclusion you don't like?

Yes, they’ve "left the atmosphere" alright! But with all these "space missions" being so "suspicious," it’s easy to see how people might question them.

They aren't suspicious to most people.
The people they are "suspicious" to are those desperate to reject them as fake.
Those who need to cling to a massive conspiracy to dismiss it all.

This massive conspiracy would necessarily involve many different competing governments, hobbyists, as well as people installing things like satellite dishes for satellite internet and TV, and those coding GPS receivers and so on.
It is such a massive reach it isn't funny.

And the only basis for rejecting it is that it doesn't match what they want to see.

Yes, everyone is entitled to their beliefs

Yes, and that includes people having the belief that FE is ridiculous, and any FEer who knows of the evidence for a RE and dismisses it, especially dismissing things like photos from space, deserve to be mocked.

You being entitled to your beliefs, does not mean you are entitled to have them without any repercussions for them such as mockery or social isolation.

What you are suggesting is akin to suggesting people are entitled to believe that 1+1 = 7 if it is an odd day of the month, but it equals 8 if it is a full moon; and that belief is not worthy of any mockery or ridicule or social rejection.

The only defence for such utterly ridiculous beliefs is if they are severely mentally disabled, or potentially if they are incredibly brainwashed.

It is a very simple question, which we already know the answer to, with plenty of evidence supporting that answer.

So no, suggesting they deserve mockery is not a bit much.

Maybe "character assassination" is just a side effect of this belief war.

Again, it is character suicide.
If you out yourself as a flat Earther, you are killing your own character. That is suicide, not assassination.
Assassination would be if you were closet flat Earther and someone outed you.

Ah, the "global conspiracy" card!

Yes, what you need to appeal to to make your wild idea even remotely plausible.
And even then it still fails.

You can’t deny that not everything we see fits the narrative we're told.

Like what?
Care to provide an example.
Because so far everything I have seen fits the RE model.

Maybe if the Earth was flat, things would work more naturally without needing a complex theory to explain it.

No, if Earth was flat you need so much magic to explain so many simple things it isn't funny.
A lot of this magic is just making this flat surface act and behave like a round surface to get the results you expect naturally from a RE without any convoluted BS.

Instead of all these convoluted explanations, why not just look around and see the world for what it really is?

I do, and I see world is round.
Perhaps you should try it yourself.

This is not a real world, Jack. It’s a simulation run by a psycho.

Yet there is no evidence to support that either.

It provides us with insufficient and contradictory data

I see plenty of sufficient data with no contradictory data.

Many experiments show that reality is altered by the observer. Who observes a reality shapes that reality.

No, experiments show that making a measurement or observation of some kind requires some kind of interaction with the object, with that interaction affecting it.

For example, say you want to measure how hot a bowl of water is, so you stick your hand in. That results in heat flowing between your hand and the water which alters the temperature. That is not some mystical alteration of reality by an observer, that is simply a physical process due to an interaction in the system.
The same occurs if you use a thermometer, or just dump a lump of material in.

The same occurs at the quantum level. For example, if you try to measure the spin of a particle, you interact with it in some way, such a magnetic field, which forces that spin to be in a particular direction. That interaction alters it. It is not some mystical effect of an observer.

In this regard, Jack, I have started to think that the reality in your world is that the Earth is round. I can accept this. But for me to do so, you also need to understand that the reality in my world is that the Earth is flat. I hope this works.

It doesn't work for me, as I have no basis to believe you live in a different world.

Quote from: Torve on November 25, 2024, 01:49:56 PM

Rly.

Did you not observe any instance where said contributor introduces the Heliocentric model where the topic refers to the shape of the earth?

So you meant a pointless semantic game.
For the most part on this site there are 2 main ideas - a geocentric flat Earth and a heliocentric round Earth.
On this site, to most people, geocentric model and FE model can be used interchangeably.
Likewise, heliocentric model and round earth model can be used interchangeably.


Especially when you are discussing events like a solar eclipse and the mainstream model, it is quite easy to make the link between them and use them interchangeably.

As soon as you made it clear you wanted to use those terms differently, such that HC would not necessarily be RE and vice versa, they clarified.
Their point remains the same. That you can make observations of past eclipses and use the pattern to predict future eclipses without needing a specific model.

So no, that is not a flat Earther diverting the discussion from the flat Earth to the heliocentric model.

Meanwhile, you deciding to go entirely off track to the utterly useless "final experiment" is a clear diversion.

That is a matter of opinion and you are certainly welcome to yours.

That is a matter of opinion and you are certainly welcome to yours.

Accusing someone of diverting or fleeing is not merely a matter of opinion.
It is an accusation against the person.

“Everything is hard to see when you keep your eyes closed to avoid seeing it.”

Oh, absolutely! But sometimes, even when you open your eyes, the Earth is so flat that no matter where you look, nothing changes! Everything is just flat, like a pancake, and all we see is endless flatness. So really, what’s there to see? We’re already living in a perfect, flat world!

“What observation are you making that shows the sky is flat?”

Well, the sky is flat because, clearly, if the Earth is flat, everything else must be too! Have you ever seen the sky curve? I certainly haven’t. The horizon looks perfectly straight, like a giant flat disk! If it were curved, surely we’d notice a little tilt, right? I mean, a curved sky would be hard to ignore, wouldn’t it?

“Should not exist if Earth is flat. Take a look at a flat table. Do you see a horizon?”

But of course, on a flat Earth, we would totally expect to see a horizon! Just like looking at the edge of a table! If the Earth were round, we would be falling off of it constantly. How could we ever keep walking in a straight line without falling over the edge? The horizon is just the edge of our perfectly flat Earth!

“Look at how the horizon changes. If you get higher the horizon gets further away, and lower.”

Exactly! That’s proof it’s flat. If you climb higher, you can see further across the flat land. It’s like walking on a giant pancake. If the Earth were round, wouldn’t you notice the curve more? But no, the higher you go, the more of that perfectly flat horizon you can see!

“Look at how objects going over the horizon appear to sink, disappearing from the bottom up.”

That’s just an optical illusion! When objects disappear bottom-first, it’s because of the way the light travels over a flat surface. It’s just like when a car drives away and the bottom part disappears first, not because of curvature, but because of perspective!

“Look at the stars and the moon. How they appear the same regardless of where you are, just in a different position in the sky.”

Of course, the stars and moon appear in the same places because they’re just rotating around a flat, stationary Earth! It’s just like a giant cosmic ceiling fan above us. It’s no big deal – the idea that stars rotate around a round Earth is just a big misunderstanding.

“Look at how we have both a north and south celestial pole which stars appear to rotate around.”

Well, sure, but that’s easy to explain. It’s just perspective! We live on a flat surface, and from our vantage point, the stars seem to move in circles. If you stand in one spot, the motion of the stars just gives you the vision that they’re spinning around poles. Simple!

“This also includes things like how the sun and moon appear to set instead of just appearing to travel off into the distance and shrink to a point.”

The sun and moon don’t shrink into the distance because of curvature! They just travel across the flat sky, and as they move, they seem to disappear over the “horizon,” which is just the edge of the flat Earth. It’s all very simple when you think about it!

“Countless observations almost anyone can make shows beyond any sane doubt that Earth is round.”

I think it’s the other way around. There’s countless evidence to show that the Earth is flat! The whole idea of the Earth being round is just a narrative designed to confuse us. All you need to do is look around at the flat world we live in, and it’s obvious!

“The only way out is if you choose to ignore the majority of the world and pretend there is only one time zone, with everyone seeing the same thing at the same time.”

Maybe the majority is wrong! What’s wrong with rejecting the mainstream narrative? The world is flat, and we have every right to believe that. Who says the majority is always right? History is full of examples where the majority was completely wrong!

“You then have the more technologically complicated ones, like GPS, where anyone can hypothetically code a receiver and use it to determine their position on Earth, using RE math and satellites in space.”

GPS works just fine on a flat Earth too! It doesn’t need to rely on a spherical Earth to function. It’s just technology! The GPS satellites? They’re part of a grand conspiracy, obviously. If you think they’re proof of a round Earth, I’ve got a bridge to sell you!

“You then have the countless photos from those satellites in space.”

Photos from space? Fake. Obviously photoshopped. Have you seen how easy it is to manipulate an image these days? Those “photos” don’t prove anything except that there are some really good graphic designers working for the space agencies.

“And there are things like flight paths, which when taken collectively, only make sense on a round Earth.”

Oh, come on. Flight paths are just one big cover-up. The airlines are in on it. They wouldn’t even need to murder people to keep the flat Earth secret – they’d just reroute the flights and make everyone believe they’re going over the “curvature.”

“No, it is “the research has already been done, and it shows they are wrong, yet they ignore it all, often claiming massive conspiracies which they cannot substantiate” approach.”

The research has been skewed! We’ve been fed lies for centuries, and it’s time to wake up and see the truth: the Earth is flat! All this “research” is just part of the grand conspiracy to hide the truth from us..

“I talk about science that uses observations.”

I observe the Earth every day, and it’s as flat as can be! No amount of so-called “scientific research” can change what I see with my own eyes.

“But the instruments clearly show it.”

Instruments can lie too. What good is an instrument if it’s measuring the wrong thing? We’ve been lied to for too long to trust these so-called measurements. Our own senses tell us the Earth is flat, and that’s all the proof I need!

“I talk about science that uses observations.”

And I observe the world. It’s flat. No experiment, no matter how fancy, can change that.

“Just HOW are you seeing a flat Earth.”

It’s simple. Look around you! The ground is flat. The horizon is flat. The sky is flat. Everything is flat! We’re all just too conditioned to think otherwise. But the truth is clear when you stop questioning and just observe.

“It’s only when you accept it as fact, then everything else suddenly starts to make sense.”

Exactly. Once you accept that the Earth is flat, everything falls into place. The stars, the horizon, the flight paths – they all make sense when you realize we’re living on a flat Earth. It’s the only logical conclusion!

But sometimes, even when you open your eyes, the Earth is so flat that no matter where you look, nothing changes! Everything is just flat, like a pancake, and all we see is endless flatness.

Where?
I am yet to see any example of this.
Here is a question, do you see a horizon there? And as you get closer do you see a different region of land?
If so, that is NOT looking flat.

Again, the best you get is not being able to tell.
That does not mean it looks flat.

If you think it looks flat, clearly explain how you are seeing it is flat.

Well, the sky is flat because, clearly, if the Earth is flat, everything else must be too!

So you are so desperate for Earth to be flat that you just assert everything else is.
You cannot explain how the sky looks flat at all.

The horizon looks perfectly straight, like a giant flat disk!

You mean a circle?
A circle is not straight.
This is what we would expect for a round Earth.

If it were curved, surely we’d notice a little tilt, right?

How?
Why don't you try drawing out what you expect it to look like, and why.

As a reminder, if Earth was a perfect sphere, the horizon would be the same angle of dip all around.

But of course, on a flat Earth, we would totally expect to see a horizon! Just like looking at the edge of a table!

i.e. the only horizon we would expect to see is the edge of the flat Earth.
You should NOT be able to go up higher and see further.
You should NOT be able to go closer to the horizon and see more.
And the horizon would not be the same distance all around. Instead, it would simply be the distance to that edge of Earth.

Compare that to reality, or a sphere. Where the horizon is the same distance in all directions, getting higher allows you to see further and moving towards the horizon changes what you can see.

So the horizon we see on Earth is NOT the horizon expected for a flat surface.

If the Earth were round, we would be falling off of it constantly.

So what, we would "fall" off into space? How?
What magic is causing that?

Exactly! That’s proof it’s flat.

No, that is direct proof it is not flat.

If it was flat, the horizon is the edge. Going up higher wont let you see more, because you can already see to the edge, there is no more to see.

If the Earth were round, wouldn’t you notice the curve more?

And you do, but you need to quite high for it to be very clear.

That’s just an optical illusion! When objects disappear bottom-first, it’s because of the way the light travels over a flat surface. It’s just like when a car drives away and the bottom part disappears first, not because of curvature, but because of perspective!

No, it isn't.
Perspective makes the smallest part appear first, and cannot make an object appear to sink below the horizon.

If it was perspective it would simply shrink until it is unresolvable.
But there are plenty of cases where the object is resolvable and yet the bottom is missing.
You can even take a picture and then get a scaled down version of the object from much closer and overlay it and see the bottom is well below the horizon.

This shows it is NOT merely perspective.

Of course, the stars and moon appear in the same places because they’re just rotating around a flat, stationary Earth! It’s just like a giant cosmic ceiling fan above us.

No, the point is they don't appear in the same place in the sky, they appear in a different place, yet appear the same.
You can even compare this to a giant fan. Go stand directly under a ceiling fan and take a picture. Then go stand a bit away from it and take a picture, then go stand very far away and take a picture.

At the simplest level you see the apparent shape traced out by the spinning fan change from being a circle to an ellipse to a line.
Considering the full fan, you go from seeing just the base, to being able to see part of the side and the support holding it up.

This does not match what is observed in reality.
Take the moon for example. Regardless of where you are, you see the full moon as roughly a circle, with the same circle seen everywhere, but at a different position in the sky relative to Earth.

That shouldn't happen if Earth was flat. It is impossible.

The fact we see it basically the same regardless of where we are shows it must be very far away. And that means the only way it can appear in a different position relative to Earth is if that reference (i.e. Earth's surface) is at a different orientation, i.e. Earth is round.

We live on a flat surface, and from our vantage point, the stars seem to move in circles. If you stand in one spot, the motion of the stars just gives you the vision that they’re spinning around poles. Simple!

No, not simple.
Pure BS.

That works if you are standing outside looking in.
So for the common FE model, that would be looking to the north. Just like if you were standing outside a racetrack looking in.

But if you stand on the inside looking out (e.g. looking to the south) you should see them taking sweeping arcs and going behind you, not circling a point in front of you.

And as above, it shouldn't be a circle unless you were standing directly under that point looking up.
Everywhere else should see it as an ellipse.

So the fact you see 2 points it circles (and these are always 180 degrees apart) shows it isn't the classical FE BS. Instead it requires Earth to be a sphere or cylinder.
The fact they are circles, with the angle of elevation of the centre matching your latitude requires Earth to be roughly spherical.

The sun and moon don’t shrink into the distance because of curvature!

They don't shrink into the distance at all.
That is the problem.
If it was perspective they should shrink.
You cannot have perspective make an object sink without also making it shrink.

They just travel across the flat sky, and as they move, they seem to disappear over the “horizon,” which is just the edge of the flat Earth. It’s all very simple when you think about it!

Quite the opposite, it is simple when you don't think about it.
As soon as you think about it, all of that falls apart.

I think it’s the other way around.

Yet I have provided plenty which you cannot explain how they work on a FE, instead dismissing it as simple with handwavy BS which ignores the key parts.
Meanwhile, you cannot provide a single observation which shows Earth is flat.
The best you have come up with is "it looks flat" without even being able to explain just what you are seeing which makes it look flat.

The whole idea of the Earth being round is just a narrative designed to confuse us. All you need to do is look around at the flat world we live in, and it’s obvious!

No, the idea of Earth being round is based upon mountains of evidence, with no concern as to if it confuses you.
I do look around, and see that it is obvious that Earth is round.
I see nothing indicating it is flat.

And yet again, you provide nothing to show it is flat.

Maybe the majority is wrong!

It isn't a matter of being right or wrong, it is a matter of existing or not.
e.g. I have spoken to people in a different time zone, where it is day for me and night for them.
This includes with video calls, where I can see it is night for them.

I have even travelled to different locations and experienced these differences in time zones my self.

But in order for a flat Earth to work with what we have seen, these locations cannot exist.

The world is flat, and we have every right to believe that.

The world is not flat.
You do have the right to believe whatever delusional BS you want, but everyone else also has the right to call you out on it and ridicule you for it.

GPS works just fine on a flat Earth too! It doesn’t need to rely on a spherical Earth to function.

No, it doesn't.
If Earth was flat you could make a system, but it would need a different setup with different math.

They’re part of a grand conspiracy, obviously.

Except anyone can make their own receiver and check all the math themselves to confirm it does use round Earth math and shows Earth is round.

It is only those who wish to remain wilfully ignorant that can so easily dismiss it as a conspiracy.

Photos from space? Fake. Obviously photoshopped.

Why?
Because they don't show what you want?

That does not make them obviously photoshopped.
It shows you will simply dismiss any evidence that shows you are wrong.

Oh, come on. Flight paths are just one big cover-up.

Firstly, WHY?
There is absolutely no point to them doing so.
And plenty of people have gone on those flights.

they’d just reroute the flights and make everyone believe they’re going over the “curvature.”

Except the path they take would be drastically different with people easily able to tell that they are not going where the airline says they were, and it would take much longer or they would need much faster planes, which raises the question of why are they doing it? Why not use those faster planes for all trips?

The research has been skewed! We’ve been fed lies for centuries, and it’s time to wake up and see the truth: the Earth is flat! All this “research” is just part of the grand conspiracy to hide the truth from us..

Now try it honestly.
The research has been done, but you don't like the results, so you reject it all as fake and dismiss it at all costs.
You have no basis to your claim that Earth is flat or that all this research is wrong.
Instead, you opt for a massive global conspiracy to hide the truth. A conspiracy which has somehow managed to survive for thousands of years and involve countless people, with no motive.

What makes more sense, that insane conspiracy and so many observations being misunderstood, or you are wrong and can't bring yourself to admit Earth is not flat?

I observe the Earth every day, and it’s as flat as can be! No amount of so-called “scientific research” can change what I see with my own eyes.

Again, this statement is useless.
Just what are you seeing which indicates it is flat?
You can't provide anything. Instead you just repeat the empty claim that it looks flat.

Instruments can lie too.

That entirely depends on the insturment.
And usually when an instrument lies, it does so all the time and you can check that.

But did you bother looking at what instrument I suggested?

I said to get a fish tank, take it to the top of a mountain and pour some water in.
In order for that instrument to lie, you you would have to have some magic cause the water to go down on one side and up on the other.

The idea that it is lying to you is an insane, desperate plea to cling to the idea that Earth is flat.

Our own senses tell us the Earth is flat, and that’s all the proof I need!

Again, say it honestly.
You have absolutely nothing to indicate it is flat, but you want to believe it is flat so you do so, with nothing to justify that position and no proof needed.

And I observe the world. It’s flat.

Yet you can provide NOTHING to substantiate this.

It’s simple. Look around you! The ground is flat. The horizon is flat. The sky is flat. Everything is flat!

This is just repeating the same useless empty claim.
Again, just how is it "flat"?
What observation are you making which indicates it is flat?

Again, the horizon, which should be a flat circle for a spherical Earth, shows Earth is round.
The horizon for a flat Earth should nothing like it.

But the truth is clear when you stop questioning and just observe.

You mean if I stop questioning and accept your entirely baseless and empty and useless claim.

Quote from: lying scum on November 28, 2024, 04:37:45 AM

“It’s only when you accept it as fact, then everything else suddenly starts to make sense.”

Exactly. Once you accept that the Earth is flat, everything falls into place.

So now you are back to entirely fabricating quotes and lying to everyone?
Thanks for once again showing your dishonesty knows no bounds.


Now how about you try answering the question you were asked?
Exactly what observation are you making which shows Earth is flat?
Saying it looks flat is NOT answering the question. Explain HOW it looks flat. Exactly what observation are you making that shows this.

Where?
I am yet to see any example of this.
Here is a question, do you see a horizon there? And as you get closer do you see a different region of land?
If so, that is NOT looking flat.

Oh, you're looking for examples? You want proof? Just go outside and look around, genius! The fact that we can see miles and miles of land without any curve proves the Earth is flat. You don't need a special example, you need basic observation. And yes, of course, the horizon changes depending on your distance—because you're on a FLAT plane. A curve would distort that, but there’s no curve, is there?

Again, the best you get is not being able to tell.
That does not mean it looks flat.

No, the best you get is not being able to tell, because you're too brainwashed to see the obvious. It looks FLAT because it is. You just don’t want to admit it.

If you think it looks flat, clearly explain how you are seeing it is flat.

It’s simple: the horizon stretches out as far as you can see, and it’s perfectly level. You can’t see any curve, and no matter where you go, it’s the same. Now, if you don’t want to accept that, then go ahead and keep pretending the Earth is a spinning ball. But it’s clear as day that it’s flat.

So you are so desperate for Earth to be flat that you just assert everything else is.
You cannot explain how the sky looks flat at all.

Desperate? Ha! I don’t need to “assert” anything. The sky looks flat because the Earth is flat! Everything around us is on a level plane. The fact that you think the sky should be curved is just your imagination running wild. The sky doesn’t curve. It’s just there, like a big dome over us.

You mean a circle?
A circle is not straight.
This is what we would expect for a round Earth.

A circle? No, I mean a perfectly FLAT horizon. You’re confusing a circle with curvature, but the horizon is straight. Your “round Earth” theory would never produce a perfect, flat horizon. The Earth’s supposed curvature should show, but it doesn’t. Simple observation defeats your argument.

How?
Why don't you try drawing out what you expect to look like, and why.

I don’t need to “draw” anything. All you need to do is look. The horizon should dip away from you at a consistent angle if Earth were round. But that’s not what happens, is it? The horizon stays perfectly level and there’s no curve. You’ve been fed a lie, my friend.

i.e. the only horizon we would expect to see is the edge of the flat Earth.
You should NOT be able to go up higher and see further.
You should NOT be able to go closer to the horizon and see more.
And the horizon would not be the same distance all around. Instead, it would simply be the distance to that edge of Earth.

Exactly! The flat Earth horizon doesn't change no matter how high you go. If you were on a round Earth, you should see the curvature as you rise, but you don’t. And the horizon should curve away from you, but it doesn’t. Everything is perfectly level. The only “edge” you see is the distance that your eyes can reach, flat and uninterrupted.

Compare that to reality, or a sphere. Where the horizon is the same distance in all directions, getting higher allows you to see further and moving towards the horizon changes what you can see.

Oh, but it doesn't work like that in the real world. On a flat Earth, as you get higher, you can see further. Your argument is that the horizon should be a "curved" line that moves, but it doesn’t! It stays the same no matter where you go. It’s the same on all points of the flat Earth.

So what, we would "fall" off into space? How?
What magic is causing that?

Oh, so now you’re pretending we’d “fall off” if the Earth were round? Why don’t you try thinking for a second? The force of gravity pulls everything towards the center, which is why we don’t “fall off.” The idea that we’d fall off into space if Earth were round is a complete misunderstanding of physics. It’s not magic. It’s basic science.

No, that is direct proof it is not flat.

Actually, it’s direct proof that the Earth is flat. If Earth were round, the horizon would be a curve, not a straight line. That’s not even up for debate—it's basic observation.

And you do, but you need to quite high for it to be very clear.

No, you don’t. If the Earth were actually curved, you'd see it from the ground. You don’t need to go “high” for a curve to be visible. It’s flat from where I stand, and from where you stand too if you’re being honest.

No, it isn't.
Perspective makes the smallest part appear first, and cannot make an object appear to sink below the horizon.

Right, because perspective can’t make objects disappear bottom-first, right? Except, it does. Go outside and watch a ship go over the horizon. The bottom of the ship disappears first—tell me how perspective causes that! It’s not perspective, it’s the Earth’s curve, or rather, the lack of it, showing the truth.

No, the point is they don't appear in the same place in the sky, they appear in a different place, yet appear the same.

That's right! They appear in the same place relative to each other because they’re moving in the same direction across the flat sky. But from our perspective, they’re constantly shifting positions. Nothing about the sky is “curved.” It’s a flat dome above us, and the stars and the moon just move in circles above us. Simple.

This does not match what is observed in reality.

Reality? You mean the reality where we see the same moon no matter where we are on Earth? Yeah, the moon's shape stays the same, because we are all looking up at the same flat sky. The illusion of movement and position is simply the stars and moon moving in their flat orbit around us.

That shouldn’t happen if Earth was flat. It is impossible.

It’s not impossible, it’s the truth! You’re just too blinded by your spherical Earth theory to accept the reality that everything moves in perfect circles over a flat plane. Just because it doesn’t fit into your preconceived ideas doesn’t mean it’s impossible. It means you're wrong.

No, not simple.
Pure BS.

Oh, come on. The idea that the stars move in circles around us is just simple observation, not BS. If you’re so caught up in your round Earth fantasy that you can't even recognize the simplest truths, that’s on you, not me.

That works if you are standing outside looking in.
So for the common FE model, that would be looking to the north. Just like if you were standing outside a racetrack looking in.

Exactly! The stars circle over us in a way that only makes sense if we’re on a flat plane. If Earth were round, you wouldn’t see that behavior. But you do, so get used to it.

But if you stand on the inside looking out (e.g. looking to the south) you should see them taking sweeping arcs and going behind you, not circling a point in front of you.

You should see them taking sweeping arcs? Why? They stay in a perfectly circular pattern over a flat Earth. If Earth were curved, you’d see them disappear behind the curve as they “set.” But no, they don’t—because they’re moving in a flat pattern!

And as above, it shouldn't be a circle unless you were standing directly under that point looking up.
Everywhere else should see it as an ellipse.

Well, too bad! What we actually see is a circle, no matter where we are. That’s because we're on a flat Earth, and that's how it works.

So the fact you see 2 points it circles (and these are always 180 degrees apart) shows it isn't the classical FE BS. Instead it requires Earth to be a sphere or cylinder.

Wrong again! The flat Earth model accounts for everything you see. You just don’t understand it, because you’ve been taught to ignore the obvious. But just look up at night—the stars never behave the way you claim they should on a sphere.

Uh, no. Again, that is NOT what we would expect to see.

Of course, because you don’t want to see it. You’d rather cling to your globe theory, even though all the signs point to the Earth being flat.

Again, this works perfectly for a flat Earth. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Exactly! This all fits perfectly with a flat Earth. You just can’t accept it because you’ve been indoctrinated into believing in a globe that doesn't even make sense when you really look at it. Wake up!

No, because this is what we observe.
You simply refuse to accept it because you cannot stand the thought that everything you've been told might be a lie.

Exactly! You can’t accept the truth because it goes against your entire world view. But the more you try to deny it, the clearer it becomes. The Earth is flat, and no amount of globe propaganda will change that.

That's because it's not flat, and you are simply too stubborn to admit it.

Actually, no, you're just too stubborn to accept the truth. The Earth is flat, and all your fancy globe arguments are nothing but distractions from the facts.

A perfect circle is still not flat.

A perfect circle on a flat surface proves flatness! But you’re so obsessed with your spherical delusions that you can’t even see that.

That is no excuse for your lack of evidence and logical argument.

It’s not a lack of evidence, it’s a lack of willingness to look at the evidence. The Earth is flat, and you’re too blind to see it.

Yet you can provide NOTHING to substantiate this.

Oh, I’m sorry, were you expecting something more than the obvious? You want me to pull out scientific papers or give you equations for something that is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU? The fact that we don’t see any curvature is the proof. That’s not something I need to “substantiate,” it’s something you can go outside and see for yourself. But, I guess you’re too caught up in your globe fantasy to notice the truth.

This is just repeating the same useless empty claim.
Again, just how is it "flat"?
What observation are you making which indicates it is flat?

Oh, I don't know, maybe it’s the endless horizon that doesn’t curve. Maybe it’s the fact that, no matter how high you go, you never see a “round” Earth. You’re so obsessed with the idea of “round” that you ignore the simplest fact: the Earth doesn’t curve! Take your blinders off and just observe.

You mean if I stop questioning and accept your entirely baseless and empty and useless claim.

Sure, because your unsubstantiated belief in a spherical Earth is so much more solid, right? You’re the one who refuses to accept evidence. You cling to your idea that the Earth is a ball despite all the obvious signs that it’s flat. Maybe it's time to question your beliefs instead of attacking mine.

So now you are back to entirely fabricating quotes and lying to everyone?
Thanks for once again showing your dishonesty knows no bounds.

Lying? Please, I’m simply pointing out the obvious that you’re so desperate to avoid seeing. Fabricating? It’s not fabrication when the facts are staring you in the face, and you're the one refusing to acknowledge them. Maybe the only one here lying is you, by pretending the Earth is round when the truth is clearly flat.

Oh, you're looking for examples? You want proof? Just go outside and look around, genius!

So you have no examples.

The fact that we can see miles and miles of land without any curve proves the Earth is flat.

You mean the fact we can only see to the horizon, with the ground curving out of view?
That shows Earth is round, not flat.
If we could see all the way to the edge of a flat disc, with nothing beyond that, it would show Earth is flat.
But that isn't what happens.

Again, the fact there is this local horizon shows there is a curve.


Again, if you were honest, instead of saying "see miles and miles of land without any curve"
you would instead say "see miles and miles of land being able to notice any curve until the horizon"

And yes, of course, the horizon changes depending on your distance—because you're on a FLAT plane.

No, the distance to the horizon varies with altitude, but otherwise not with your location.
If Earth was flat, that wouldn't happen. But that is just what we expect for a round Earth.

No, the best you get is not being able to tell, because you're too brainwashed to see the obvious. It looks FLAT because it is. You just don’t want to admit it.

No, it doesn't look flat.
Again, there is plenty that shows it isn't.
And for something so obvious, why are you entirely incapable of explaining it?
If it was obvious you would be able to explain.
But instead you are just desperate for Earth to be flat so you keep saying it is.

It’s simple: the horizon stretches out as far as you can see, and it’s perfectly level.

i.e. the horizon, i.e. the curve, is the limit of what you can see, just like you would expect for a round surface.
This is a visual observation that shows Earth is ROUND.

This does NOT show it is flat.

You also say it is perfectly level, what is? The horizon?

If you mean it is horizontal to you, i.e. the same angle of dip all around, that is exactly what you would expect for a round Earth.
If you mean it magically appears at eye level, it does not.

That horizon is the curve you are looking for.
The other curve to look for requires you to be much further away so the horizon is down than in front.

So no, that is still not looking flat.

Again, if it was flat, you would see to the very edge of Earth, not just to a nearby horizon.

Desperate? Ha! I don’t need to “assert” anything.

Then why do you keep asserting things look flat instead of trying to explain how?
Why do you say crap like this:

The sky looks flat because the Earth is flat!

This makes no sense.
It shows the sole reason you are saying the sky looks flat is NOT because it looks flat but because you are desperate for Earth to be flat.

The sky doesn’t curve. It’s just there, like a big dome over us.

And now you come up with this utter insanity.
You are saying a dome is flat.
Do you understand what a dome is?

A circle?

Yes, a circle.
A curved line which is made such that any point along the line is an equal distance from the centre.
That is the horizon. A CIRCLE. That is NOT a straight line.

No, I mean a perfectly FLAT horizon.

i.e. exactly what you would expect for a round Earth.

The Earth’s supposed curvature should show, but it doesn’t. Simple observation defeats your argument.

Again, try it honestly.
Your baseless assertion does NOTHING to my argument.
Just how should this curvature show? Just what do you think it should look like? Can you explain at all?

Do you even understand how that curvature works?

\
I don’t need to “draw” anything.

You mean you can't draw anything, because then it is even easier to refute your BS.

The horizon should dip away from you at a consistent angle if Earth were round.

No, Earth should be dipping away, producing the horizon we see.
That is exactly what we see.
If you think it should be doing something else, why don't you try explaining what and why, rather than just asserting it.

You’ve been fed a lie, my friend.

No, you have continually tried to feed me a lie, but I'm not biting.

The flat Earth horizon doesn't change no matter how high you go.

Meanwhile, the real horizon does.
It gets further away.

If you were on a round Earth, you should see the curvature as you rise

i.e. you should be able to see further, and the horizon should get lower.
And guess what? That is exactly what happens.

On a flat Earth, as you get higher, you can see further.

No, in a hypothetical flat Earth getting higher does not allow you to see further as there is nothing to obstruct the view.
It is only a round Earth which allows you to see further as you get higher.

Your argument is that the horizon should be a "curved" line that moves

And it does.
As you move around, the horizon moves with you.

Oh, so now you’re pretending we’d “fall off” if the Earth were round?

No, you are pretending that.
So perhaps you should follow your own advice.
As a reminder:

If the Earth were round, we would be falling off of it constantly.

Actually, it’s direct proof that the Earth is flat. If Earth were round, the horizon would be a curve, not a straight line.

Just ignoring the refutation of your BS and repeating the same refuted BS wont magically make it true.
The horizon is a circle, just like we expect for a round Earth.
That circle curves, just like we expect it to for a round Earth.

No, you don’t. If the Earth were actually curved, you'd see it from the ground.

Only in the form of the horizon existing.
If you want to see the horizon as a circle, like you appear to do, you need to be up high enough to see the horizon entirely in your FOV, not some in front and some behind.

Right, because perspective can’t make objects disappear bottom-first, right? Except, it does. Go outside and watch a ship go over the horizon.

So watch the effects of a round surface?
Again, you are so desperate for Earth to be flat, you just assert it is, and then pretend that anything that happens on Earth must be because Earth is flat.
You literally take an observation that shows Earth is round, and pretend that is what you expect on a flat surface.

The bottom of the ship disappears first—tell me how perspective causes that!

That is something for you to do.
I know it isn't perspective causing it. I know it is the curvature of Earth causing it.

That's right! They appear in the same place relative to each other because they’re moving in the same direction across the flat sky.

That does not answer anything.

Reality? You mean the reality where we see the same moon no matter where we are on Earth?

Yes, something you wouldn't expect in your flat fantasy.

Yeah, the moon's shape stays the same, because we are all looking up at the same flat sky.

But from drastically different positions. As already explained.
You ignoring that wont change it.

It’s not impossible

Then why do you need to entirely ignore the explanation of why it is impossible and refuse to an explanation of how it is possible?
If it was actually possible, you would explain how.
But deep down you know it isn't.

Remember, we have been though this before.
A circle only appears as a circle if you look at it from along the axis. If you look at it from a different direction it appears as an ellipse or a line.

You’re just too blinded

Then why am I the one capable of explaining things?
Why are you the one just capable of repeating the same pathetic assertions and entirely ignoring the explanation of why you are wrong?
Why are you the one that needs to ignore what you have said?

The idea that the stars move in circles around us is just simple observation, not BS.

Even notice what you are saying now?
AROUND US, not above us.
Because at least all it takes to reach that idea is to pretend the round Earth is stationary with the sky spinning on Earth's axis.
But what we see is entirely inconsistent with the stars circling above us.

Exactly! The stars circle over us in a way that only makes sense if we’re on a flat plane.

No, as explained, they only make sense for a RE.

If Earth were round, you wouldn’t see that behavior.

Again, if this is true, why are you entirely incapable of explaining why?
What about Earth being round would prevent this?

You should see them taking sweeping arcs? Why?

Because you are looking out towards them.
If the stars are circling around the north pole, going to the west, and you are standing looking south, then stars should enter your FOV from your left (i.e. the east), move along your FOV and then leave on the right (i.e. the west).
Just like if you were standing on the inside of a racetrack watching cars go past.

They should NOT appear to circle in front of you.

This is basic directionality.
When they are behind you, how do they appear in front of you?

Again, this only makes sense on a round Earth, not a flat Earth.

If Earth were curved, you’d see them disappear behind the curve as they “set.”

That depends on where they are and where you are.
They need to be above a point 90 degrees away from you or more to set.

So if you are standing at a point 30 degrees south, and looking to the south, a star 60 degrees south will only just touch the horizon. A star further south will be less than 90 degrees away and will never set.

Well, too bad! What we actually see is a circle, no matter where we are.

Yes, demonstrating Earth is round and that they are not tracing circles overhead.
You are basically saying you are wrong.

If you think it can work on a flat Earth, explain how.

Wrong again! The flat Earth model accounts for everything you see.

Then why are you completely incapable of explaining how and instead just need to assert it does.

But just look up at night—the stars never behave the way you claim they should on a sphere.

No, they behave exactly the way I claim they should on a sphere.
But do you know the big difference? I can explain why. You can't.
You can only assert they do.

Quote from: a lying piece of shit, so desperate to lie to everyone that they fabricate quotes link==topic=92876.msg2435521#msg2435521 date=1732865592

Again, this works perfectly for a flat Earth. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Exactly! This all fits perfectly with a flat Earth.

No, it doesn't as repeatedly explained.
If it did, you could explain how instead of just asserting it does.

a globe that doesn't even make sense

Yet you can't show a single aspect that doesn't.

Exactly! You can’t accept the truth because it goes against your entire world view.

There you go projecting again.

A perfect circle on a flat surface proves flatness!

But a perfect circle on a round surface does not.

It’s not a lack of evidence, it’s a lack of willingness to look at the evidence.

That does sum you up quite well.
You know there is plenty of evidence showing you are wrong. You just refuse to consider it.

Oh, I’m sorry, were you expecting something more than the obvious?

No, I was fully expecting you to act like the lying coward you are.
You have NOTHING to support your position.
Your baseless assertions do not help you.
Your baseless dismissal does not help you.
Your blatant lies and fabricated quotes do not help you.

The fact that we don’t see any curvature

Is your fantasy, not a fact.

Again, the best you get is not being able to tell.
If someone is blind, so they literally cannot see, and I put a basketball in front of them, is them not being able to see the curve on that basketball proof that it is flat? No.
If you keep your eyes closed to avoid seeing the curvature, is that proof it is flat? No. That is just proof that you are wilfully ignorance.

You can't even articulate just what you think we should be seeing that we aren't.
Instead, you continually assert that it looks flat and you can't see the curve.

Oh, I don't know, maybe it’s the endless horizon that doesn’t curve.

You mean the horizon, the direct result of the curve, literally seeing the curve?
One of the many things that clearly shows Earth is round?
That is NOT seeing it flat.

no matter how high you go, you never see a “round” Earth.

Firstly, what are you expecting to see?

Secondly, how high have you gotten?
Compare that to a basketball. How close would your eyes have to be?

you ignore the simplest fact: the Earth doesn’t curve!

That is your fantasy, not a fact.

Sure, because your unsubstantiated belief in a spherical Earth is so much more solid

No, my substantiated belief in a round Earth, based upon mountains of evidence.

You’re the one who refuses to accept evidence.

What evidence? You refuse to provide any?
You can't provide anything indicating Earth is flat.
Instead, you just continually assert it is and lie about the RE.

Lying?

Yes, lying.
Where you have constructed a quote yourself and then lied to everyone by attributing it to someone else to pretend they said it.
That shows you are a lying coward, and that you know your position is so pathetic you cannot justify it at all.

"Just go outside and look around, genius!"

Oh, brilliant! Of course, the answer is so simple — just look and you’ll see it’s flat! No need for complicated science or experiments, right? Just trust your eyes, the Earth is as flat as it looks! But sure, keep wearing those globetrotter glasses if you want to miss the obvious.

"The fact that we can see miles and miles of land without any curve proves the Earth is flat."

Exactly! The land stretches for miles and miles, without a curve to be seen anywhere. If Earth were round, you'd expect to see some kind of dip or curvature, wouldn’t you? But nope, just straight flat land as far as the eye can see! That’s the obvious truth, no matter how much the globe-believers try to twist things.

"You mean the fact we can only see to the horizon, with the ground curving out of view? That shows Earth is round, not flat."

Really? The horizon disappearing from sight just means the Earth is flat, not round. If the Earth were round, we'd be seeing some curve right in front of us. Instead, we see a straight line. The fact that we can see for miles without anything curving away is solid proof that it’s flat!

"No, the best you get is not being able to tell, because you're too brainwashed to see the obvious. It looks FLAT because it is. You just don’t want to admit it."

Oh, here we go again with the "brainwashed" accusations. The only brainwashed ones are those who refuse to admit the obvious: the Earth is flat. Look around! The evidence is right there, in plain sight, but apparently it’s easier to deny reality than to face it. Keep pushing that global narrative if it helps you sleep at night.

"It’s simple: the horizon stretches out as far as you can see, and it’s perfectly level."

Exactly! The horizon stays level and stretches out infinitely, just like you’d expect on a flat Earth. You’re not going to find any curve, no matter how hard you look. It’s level and consistent all around. But, of course, the globe believers will find any excuse to deny what’s right in front of their faces.

"No, the distance to the horizon varies with altitude, but otherwise not with your location. If Earth was flat, that wouldn’t happen."

Oh really? You’re telling me that the higher you go, the further the horizon stretches? That’s exactly what would happen on a flat Earth! The higher you go, the more of the flat plane you can see. This idea that the horizon should stay the same distance is just a misunderstanding of perspective on your part.

"No, it doesn't look flat. Again, there is plenty that shows it isn't."

No, it definitely looks flat, and it’s not because I’m “brainwashed.” If you’d open your eyes and stop clinging to your outdated globe ideas, you’d see the same thing. The Earth looks flat, feels flat, and behaves flat. The only thing that’s not flat is your excuse for why it’s not.

"It’s simple: the horizon stretches out as far as you can see, and it’s perfectly level."

Yep, and that’s the truth. The horizon is flat, no matter where you stand or how high you go. If the Earth were round, that would not be the case, and yet, it is. The evidence is staring you in the face. You can keep denying it, but that won’t change the fact that it’s perfectly flat!

"You are just desperate for Earth to be flat, so you keep saying it is."

Desperate? I’m not the one clinging to an outdated, unproven model of a spinning ball in space. The truth is right in front of you. I’m simply calling it as I see it. I’m not desperate, I’m just seeing what’s really there. But I guess when you’re stuck in a mental box, it’s hard to accept the obvious.

"The sky looks flat because the Earth is flat!"

Exactly! The sky is flat, just like the Earth. It’s all part of the same system. When you look at the sky, it’s not a curved dome; it’s a flat, open sky stretching above a flat Earth. If you’d stop trying to force a globe model onto everything, you might actually start seeing the truth.

"The sky doesn’t curve. It’s just there, like a big dome over us."

Now we’re talking! The sky is a flat dome, as it should be. The idea of a curved sky is just another layer of deception. It’s not curved, it’s right there, above us, flat. Just like the Earth beneath our feet.

"No, I mean a perfectly FLAT horizon."

You’re right! A flat horizon, and that’s exactly what we see. The horizon doesn’t bend or dip; it stays level with your eyes, no matter how far you go. If Earth were round, the horizon would dip away from you, but it doesn’t. Keep trying to explain that with your globe theories, though, I’m sure you’ll come up with some excuse.

"The Earth’s supposed curvature should show, but it doesn’t. Simple observation defeats your argument."

Exactly! It doesn’t show. The curvature is a myth. If the Earth were truly curved, we would see it everywhere, but we don’t. No amount of fancy explanations can change the simple fact that the Earth is flat, and no curvature is visible anywhere.

"The flat Earth horizon doesn't change no matter how high you go."

And that’s exactly what we would expect on a flat Earth. The higher you go, the further you can see across the flat plane. The horizon doesn’t change, because the Earth doesn’t curve. Keep trying to argue against that, but reality speaks for itself.

"If you were on a round Earth, you should see the curvature as you rise."

Oh, I see! So, if Earth were round, the horizon would magically start curving as you rise? Well, guess what? That doesn’t happen. When you rise, the horizon stays perfectly level, and you can see further, just like you would expect on a flat Earth.

"On a flat Earth, as you get higher, you can see further."

Exactly! That’s how it works on a flat Earth. The higher you go, the further you can see across the flat plane. No curving, no bending, just more of the same flat world stretching out in front of you. It’s so simple, yet so hard to accept for those stuck in the globe mindset.

"Your argument is that the horizon should be a 'curved' line that moves."

The horizon is flat, and it stays exactly where it is, no matter where you move. It doesn’t curve or move in any weird way. That’s just another globetrotter myth that doesn’t match what we actually see.

"Oh, so now you’re pretending we’d 'fall off' if the Earth were round?"

No, that’s what you globalists think! The Earth is flat, and we won’t fall off, no matter where we are. You can keep imagining a giant spinning ball in space, but that’s not the world we live in. The flat Earth is here to stay.

"Actually, it’s direct proof that the Earth is flat. If Earth were round, the horizon would be a curve, not a straight line."

Exactly! The horizon is straight, and it’s flat. If Earth were round, we’d see a curve. But we don’t. The facts speak for themselves, no matter how much you try to twist them.

"No, you don’t. If the Earth were actually curved, you'd see it from the ground."

Right! We’d see the curve, but we don’t. We see a perfectly flat horizon every time. The curve is just another fairy tale for the globe believers.

"Right, because perspective can’t make objects disappear bottom-first, right? Except, it does. Go outside and watch a ship go over the horizon."

This is such a classic globalist trick! It’s not perspective making ships disappear bottom-first; it’s the Earth being flat, and the ship simply moving beyond the range of our sight. You can try to explain it away, but the reality is plain for anyone who’s willing to look.

just look and you’ll see it’s flat!

Again, repeating this crap wont help you.
Again, so far everything you have tried to appeal to either can't tell or shows it is round.

Likewise, just repeating the same crap again and again wont help you.

Explain just what you are seeing which shows as flat.
Again, we know it isn't the horizon. That shows it is round.
Repeating the same refuted BS about the horizon wont help you.

And now you are going so insane with your quotes, it isn't even clear who you are quoting. For the most part it isn't me. Are you just making crap up again?

Skipping through all the BS that has already been addressed in the last post, lets see if you have anything new.

Oh really? You’re telling me that the higher you go, the further the horizon stretches? That’s exactly what would happen on a flat Earth!

Repeating the same BS wont help you.
Remember, you already admitted that for a flat surface like a table, the horizon is the edge.
You can't see more of the surface beyond that.

Desperate? I’m not the one clinging to an outdated, unproven model

Yes you are.
The FE is an old outdated model which doesn't work at all.
Which is why you need to resort to this desperate BS to pretend it does.

The sky is a flat dome

Again, do you understand what a dome is? It isn't flat.

When you rise, the horizon stays perfectly level, and you can see further, just like you would expect on a flat Earth.

No, it is observed to drop, like I already said you could test yourself.
And as explained repeatedly, you wouldn't expect to be able to see further as you got higher if Earth was flat, as you should already be able to see to the edge.

No, that’s what you globalists think!

No, that is what lying POS like you think. As YOU said that.

If Earth were round, the horizon would be a curve, not a straight line.

As a reminder, the horizon, which is a circle, is not a straight line.

It’s not perspective making ships disappear bottom-first;

I know it isn't. But that didn't stop you lying to everyone but saying it does.

That’s just an optical illusion! When objects disappear bottom-first, it’s because of the way the light travels over a flat surface. It’s just like when a car drives away and the bottom part disappears first, not because of curvature, but because of perspective!

So you have been caught in yet another lie.

Thanks for yet again showing everyone how dishonest and desperate you are.

Flat Earth modeling will not only disappoint people but alienate people from the world. I think the Prague clock is the best 'model' to employ for the world, and cyclic thought patterns aid the mental box we inherited from our educators.

FE modelling should not be involved with reusing trickery and image magic from the guardian gatekeepers of today. Look about yourself, use your won calendar and chart the passing of seasons with no interest in sculptures of the world. These best of intentions to draw the world will lead to no good, and great damage. Let us concentrate on promoting the understanding of that, or debating a different opinion to get all ideas heard!

Thanks everyone,

I am resisting to grow.

Jack,

you're completely missing the context here. As usual, you're trying to steer the conversation towards whether the Earth is flat or not, and attempting to prove why it can't be. However, the real issue is whether flat Earthers have stopped defending this position. This is the context, and based on what I've written, we're still in the same place. In your narrow and biased perspective, this might seem wrong, but that’s not the issue. You’re missing the context entirely, which is why I don’t feel the need to respond. Maybe it's time to grow up and stop with the childish behavior.

Quote from: lying, subhuman piece of shit on December 02, 2024, 01:18:02 AM

I am resisting to grow.

you're completely missing the context here. As usual, you're trying to steer the conversation towards whether the Earth is flat or not, and attempting to prove why it can't be. However, the real issue is whether flat Earthers have stopped defending this position.

You mean you entirely diverted from the topic, spouted a bunch of pure BS, had it entirely refuted, and now want to back out?

The simple reality is that the reasons you provided are BS.

Quote from: wise on December 02, 2024, 01:18:02 AM

Quote from: lying, subhuman piece of shit on December 02, 2024, 01:18:02 AM

I am resisting to grow.

you're completely missing the context here. As usual, you're trying to steer the conversation towards whether the Earth is flat or not, and attempting to prove why it can't be. However, the real issue is whether flat Earthers have stopped defending this position.

You mean you entirely diverted from the topic, spouted a bunch of pure BS, had it entirely refuted, and now want to back out?

The simple reality is that the reasons you provided are BS.

You're the one straying from the topic. I answered the question by writing about the title and why we continue to defend the flat earth.

These are my opinions. It doesn't matter if it's wrong on your part or if it's actually wrong. These are my opinions.

These are my opinions. It doesn't matter if it's wrong on your part or if it's actually wrong. These are my opinions.

These are my opinions. It doesn't matter if it's wrong on your part or if it's actually wrong. These are my opinions.

As far as you're concerned, this is BS, but these are my reasons. Whether it's BS or not from your perspective, it doesn't change the fact that this is my view. You have to accept this. You must acknowledge freedom of thought, Jack. People are not obligated to think like you. Is not it the true time to put an end to your philosophical fascism.

You're the one straying from the topic. I answered the question by writing about the title and why we continue to defend the flat earth.

These are my opinions. It doesn't matter if it's wrong on your part or if it's actually wrong. These are my opinions.

You "answered" by stating things that are factually incorrect.
You didn't simply say that in your opinion the shape of Earth remains unclear, or that the shape of Earth remains unclear to you.
Instead you said the truth about the shape of Earth remains unclear.
That is not stating your opinion. That is making a factually incorrect statement about the world.

You are entitled to your opinions, but that does not mean you are free to make factual statements about the world that are incorrect and not have them challenged.
If you want to make an opinion, then make it clear that it just your opinion. e.g. say that you have no idea what the shape of Earth is. Don't speak for other people when you do so and don't present it as a fact.

Objecting to BS is not philosophical facism.

Objecting to BS is not philosophical facism.

If I didn't think the earth was flat, why would I defend it? Dont answer this.

The point here is that must you accept that I don't have to be right in your opinion. You don't understand this and you don't want to understand it. It's your thoughts that are BS. But I don't care whether you defend it or not. Because if you think it's not BS, they're not BS on your part, because that's your opinion. On your part, when your views are respected, this is a weakness of the other side and what should happen is philosophical fascism like you do. No, I won't do that.

Not only are you objecting to some BS. You're objecting to someone by describing his thoughts as BS who does not think like you and just expressing his opinion. This is what we call as fascism.

Not only are you saying that it is wrong for me to claim that the earth is flat, you are also against my free speech that the earth is flat. This is exactly what we call freedom of thought and expression, and you are against it.

The answer to the question of how a fascist is, is you.

If I didn't think the earth was flat, why would I defend it? Dont answer this.

I won't answer, but I will ask back as a tribute, since you are articulate and level headed to a degree and identify as an FEer.

My question is, why are Flat Earthers not interested in disproving the globe?

The point here is that must you accept that I don't have to be right in your opinion.

What you need to understand is that this isn't merely about OPINION.
You made factual statements that were wrong.
That is not merely being wrong in my opinion. That is you being objectively wrong.

If you don't want your BS challenged, don't say it.
I am under no obligation to allow you to spout BS without challenging it.

It's your thoughts that are BS.

Yet I'm the one who can defend my thoughts, while you can't.

Because if you think it's not BS, they're not BS on your part, because that's your opinion.

Again, it is not merely opinion.

what should happen is philosophical fascism like you do. No, I won't do that.

Again, what I do is not fascism.
But you do things far similar to that all the time, where you simply dismiss anything that doesn't fit your fantasy as fake, and just continually assert the same refuted nonsense.

And you seem to be advocating for something far more akin to fascism where you should be free to say as you please with no one permitted to object.

Not only are you objecting to some BS. You're objecting to someone by describing his thoughts as BS who does not think like you and just expressing his opinion. This is what we call as fascism.

No. I'm not.
Again, YOU ARE NOT MERELY EXPRESSING OPINION!

You are making objective statements about reality which are wrong.

Not only are you saying that it is wrong for me to claim that the earth is flat, you are also against my free speech that the earth is flat. This is exactly what we call freedom of thought and expression, and you are against it.

Where have I said you are not allowed to say Earth is flat?
Instead, what I have said that if you say Earth is flat, I am free to object to that BS; that you don't get to just say Earth is flat without any repercussions.

You appear to stop that freedom of thought and expression and make it so you have it but no one else does; to have it so you can say whatever you want, regardless of how incorrect it is, but no one is permitted to object.
That would be far more akin to fascism than me objecting to your BS.
That would be akin to the religious persecution of old (and current in some places) where anyone who speaks out against the religion is deemed a heretic and killed or otherwise punished.
That is NOT free speech. That is NOT freedom of thought and expression.
It is the lack of it.

Free speech works both ways.
And if you want free speech, freedom of thought and expression, you need to allow it both ways.
That means you get the freedom to say Earth is flat, and other people get the freedom to say the claim that Earth is flat is pure BS, and that anyone who says it is wrong.
That includes the freedom of thought and expression to think you are spouting pure BS and that you are wrong.

So if you want to prevent people objecting to your BS and prevent people saying you are wrong, then you do not want free speech, you do not want freedom of thought and expression.

Quote from: A FASCIST on December 02, 2024, 11:20:32 PM

Objecting to BS is not philosophical facism.

If I didn't think the earth was flat, why would I defend it? Dont answer this.

The point here is that must you accept that I don't have to be right in your opinion. You don't understand this and you don't want to understand it. It's your thoughts that are BS. But I don't care whether you defend it or not. Because if you think it's not BS, they're not BS on your part, because that's your opinion. On your part, when your views are respected, this is a weakness of the other side and what should happen is philosophical fascism like you do. No, I won't do that.

Not only are you objecting to some BS. You're objecting to someone by describing his thoughts as BS who does not think like you and just expressing his opinion. This is what we call as fascism.

Not only are you saying that it is wrong for me to claim that the earth is flat, you are also against my free speech that the earth is flat. This is exactly what we call freedom of thought and expression, and you are against it.

The answer to the question of how a fascist is, is you.

Wise, you are entitled to your opinion about the shape of the Earth. You have your reasons for having that opinion and sharing it. It is my opinion, your opinion helps you feel a greater spiritual closeness to your belief in a higher being - your creator - the maker of the matrix simulation.

It would be good if Jack Black could agree to disagree with you, shake your hand, and not fight against you tooth and nail, but a leopard cannot change it's spots and a zebra cannot change it's stripes.

Aside from flat earthers, one has to wonder what other social intolerances he has?

But just remember a famous saying: Opinions are like assholes - everybody has one.