Australia is in the true map of flat Earth* and I meant the third one as truth and not what not to fall for. I don't care about this nonsense trolling of Flat Earthers, I'm banned for 2 days soon, peace.
Flat Earth...
Posts
Total:
353
-->
@Outplayz
The moon is much weirder than you might expect
@Irrationalmadman, try again.
I am saying that you guys have a horrible track record of providing extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims and that no one should take you guys seriously because of that, and I just proved that no one should take you seriously. Despite having the reputation of you talking out of your ass, I gave you the opportunity to defend your beliefs about the world and to give the flat earth belief some credibility. You made some claims and some video referrals as evidence. I examined your claims and evidence and they're nothing but garbage. If you had a respect for evidence, you never would have linked them. However, it appears as though you too, like them, have no idea what an independent variable is... whether that's because you are ignorant, are a troll, or are deluded, who knows... all I know is that you did not establish any credibility of the flat earth belief.
Your tasks:
provide a video that shows distance alone causing mirage-like effects, not a video recorded in the baking sun beating down on a tennis court.
explain how, on a flat earth, the sun can cast shadows upwards onto clouds. I already did an experiment, referring to flat earth models for guidance on how the sun moves around, that demonstrates it is not possible for a mountain to cast a shadow, similar to the one I linked prior, onto a cloud. What it did show is that it is possible for that to happen on a spherical earth and not on a flat earth.
"It's not important, at all, that you associate me with some maniacs who will go and 'prove' that Australia is not real."
It is important. You guys follow a similar line of logic and arrive at bogus conclusions. As I said before, all they do is that they take it one continent further than you do. You call them maniacs, they call themselves smart people who are merely informing the world of another coverup. You can dictate where this conversation goes from here. Either you actually provide some decent evidence for your claims, or you can continue to provide nonsense and try to distance yourself from others who do the exact same thing you do.
-->
@janesix
As weird as it can be we know it's made of rock... not cheese lol. I think you are talking about ratios and numbers which i agree with you are pretty crazy when it comes to fine tune type arguments. But there is nothing about the moon that screams flat earth.
-->
@SamStevens
ShamStevens:
I am saying that you guys have
PassionateMadman:
Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association)argumentum ad hominem(also known as: association fallacy, bad company fallacy, company that you keep fallacy, they’re not like us fallacy, transfer fallacy)Description: When the source is viewed negatively because of its association with another person or group who is already viewed negatively.Logical Form:Person 1 states that Y is true.Person 2 also states that Y is true, and person 2 is a moron.Therefore, person 1 must be a moron too.Example #1:Delores is a big supporter for equal pay for equal work. This is the same policy that all those extreme feminist groups support. Extremists like Delores should not be taken seriously -- at least politically.Explanation: Making the assumption that Delores is an extreme feminist simply because she supports a policy that virtually every man and woman also support, is fallacious.Example #2:Pol Pot, the Cambodian Maoist revolutionary, was against religion, and he was a very bad man. Frankie is against religion; therefore, Frankie also must be a very bad man.Explanation: The fact that Pol Pot and Frankie share one particular view does not mean they are identical in other ways unrelated, specifically, being a very bad man. Pol Pot was not a bad man because he was against religion, he was a bad man for his genocidal actions.Exception: If one can demonstrate that the connection between the two characteristics that were inherited by association is causally linked, or the probability of taking on a characteristic would be high, then it would be validPol Pot, the Cambodian Maoist revolutionary, was genocidal; therefore, he was a very bad man. Frankie is genocidal; therefore, Frankie must also be a very bad man.References:Walton, D. (1998). Ad hominem arguments. University of Alabama Press.
ScamStevens:
a horrible track record of providing extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims
RationalBatman:
Err, such as?
Australia not being real is one thing but is that it? Is the track record of the others part of my own? Shall we look at the history of what the Greeks, who invented Round-Earth theory, and the entire history of Round-Earth-supporting leaders since then have done? Shall we look at every person who believes the Earth is Round and has done horrific things? Almost all organised crime has been done by Round-Earthers in the past few centuries. Even the Muslims who ignore their Qur'an supporting flat-earth have been Round Earthers due to how science and the authorities controlling it evolved with time. Would you like me to prove that Round-Earthers are numerically responsible for worse atrocities based on unjustifiable motives and that they are not just worse people but less rational in why and how they go about doing said abuse? The Ancient Egyptians were extremely rational in how and why they proportionally punished the slaves relative to how obstructive the slave was to the regime and how they were much more lenient on slaves who worked harder and did well. This was the first recorded flat-earth-supporting regime, the slaves under them supported Judaism and that is also a flat-earth supporting religion if you read Old Testament and how it says the World was fixed in one place as God made it among other lines that severely outrules round-earth that rotates in the middle of space. So no matter who you side with, the original organised humans were flat-earthers but I wonder why the same regime that the illuminati-eye is based upon (Ancient Egyptians) ends up being the one responsible for the deception. Perhaps they realised something in the poles or some reason to keep us inside and designed in Earth-Model that severely would not make us ever want to venture far into it unless an officially licensed scientist on a very specific mission with strict rules of where and when to go somewhere in said pole (this is much truer for the 'south pole' than the north pole).
-->
@SamStevens
SadStevens:
and that no one should take you guys seriously because of that
HappySadman:
Sorry but what exactly is it that no one should take us seriously on? No one should take the theory that the Earth is flat because of flat earthers having come up with some ideas that have no link to flat-earth theory and have been proven wrong, such as Australia not existing? Fascinating logic there.
DamnGrievance:
and I just proved that no one should take you seriously.
RuthlessMonster:
How did you do that?
CoC-violating Badman:
Despite having the reputation of you talking out of your ass,
CoC-masterful Madman:
Shut the fuck up about reputation and stick to the topic at hand. Defaming your opponent is the tell-tale tactic of someone losing the debate.
SS:
I gave you the opportunity to defend your beliefs about the world and to give the flat earth belief some credibility.
RM:
Is this something you decided you gave me or something others concluded you gave me? All I see is continual shut-down, mockery and ignorance. In fact the one time you proved to have genuinely watched the video, you were stunned as to what to say back so you just contradicted your own proof for Round Earth by saying 'ignore the senses' as the only comeback to a thoroughly in-depth multi-angled argument for the Sun's rotating being illusory in its up-down swing and that there's an illusion due to how our eyes and reality around us forms visually at an angle.
Schutzstaffel:
You made some claims and some video referrals as evidence. I examined your claims and evidence and they're nothing but garbage.
RealMan:
You examined the tiniest part of a massively intense video where the person said that our senses contradict with Round Earth theory and said 'ha he relies on his senses' when he was actually explaining how the senses can make the illusory up-down rotating appear when it's really only 'around' the equator or near to it, depending on the season.
-->
@SamStevens
HiSSy Fit Stevens:
If you had a respect for evidence, you never would have linked them. However, it appears as though you too, like them, have no idea what an independent variable is... whether that's because you are ignorant, are a troll, or are deluded, who knows... all I know is that you did not establish any credibility of the flat earth belief.
RM: Blablabla? Is there anything there that's anything other than CoC violating insult and just blatant ad hominem-type attempts to defame me and discredit me based on my character? Nice try, Silly Stevens.
SS
provide a video that shows distance alone causing mirage-like effects, not a video recorded in the baking sun beating down on a tennis court.
RM:
It's only obvious when it's sunny. The effect that happens when it's less blaring sunlight is that the squashing occurs without the 'glimmering'. What also happens is that the further away the actual object is, the more brutally thin the 'squash' section is relative the rest of it. If it's a cold day, sun is being obscured by either clouds or 'white-sky', you will see the horizon appears much more like Round Earthers support. They will see the object go 'down' and 'down' and 'down' especially like a boat where the last thing to go 'down' is its sail. The squashing effect will be so minimally glimmering or visible (especially if filmed on water, which all boat-scenarios are), that the denial of there being a maximal range of vision that is there even if we had super-eyesight and telescopes, means that Round Earthers justify the 'down into the ground' effect as proof of the Earth being Round. What is even more consistent with Round Earth theory, and why it's able to mesh so well with the real, flat Earth, is that whether you go closer to the object or 'up' into the sky, you will be able to again see the object and you will 'see' it go bottom-up because you're gradually undoing the minimalistic mirage effect. The reason that it's only blatant on a sunny day is that over a much smaller distance you can already see it happening. This is also supported by the face that the 'horizon' in a desert will shimmer with much less way to tell just how 'far out' what you're seeing is unless you already knew the ratio of distance-to-mirage-size.
That is the only way to prove it in a blatant way. If it's less sun-intense environment, instead of the mirage being blatant, you will see the squashing without the 'watery' effect to make it clear how and why it's happening.
In short, such an experiment would likely only be able to squash the tiniest bit of that tiny object on the tennis court into the ground because you'd have to travel to the maximal range of human eyesight to make the squashing happen. It's only ever able to happen on the smaller scale, in a more blatant way, because of the sunlight helping speed up and maximise the effect. This is a cop-out but it's a cop-out based on there because the mirage effect on a cold/non-sunny day is literally the gradual 'moving down into the ground', that's literally the effect. There's no shimmering of any significant degree and even that tiny amount of shimmering (especially in the boat-on-water scenario) is attributed to the water or whatever else.
The point is that as soon as we realise the ships or whatever you film, going 'down' past the line of vision is not proof of Earth's curvature, we start to look elsewhere for proof and patterns. Unfortunately, most stop there and say 'well here's the proof so let's apply confirmation bias to everything else we find'. That's genuinely how and why the Round-Earth theory gained momentum with the increase of ship-movement and conquest from the colonial times through to America's origin. The natural way to have perceived reality of this world in a visual and spatial sense, would have been the flat-Earth model had we not believed we were 'seeing' things 'go over' the curvature. It is even more of an issue because the fish-eye-type lens of many oldschool pseudo-telescopes that pirate's used could even make curvature artificially appear on the horizontal way (the horizon being correctly assumed to be flat and sideways led to inspire the word 'horizontal' after all). Whether the pirates or monarch-serving sailors were using a lower tech telescope or fish-eye-type lens, it still was relatively blatant to all the the Earth wasn't quite curving left-to-right as they were still smart enough to factor in the distortion that comes with such a lens. You will point out that fish-eye lens was invented much more recently but based on how they curved glass they could make that effect happen long before.
-->
@SamStevens
SS:
explain how, on a flat earth, the sun can cast shadows upwards onto clouds. I already did an experiment, referring to flat earth models for guidance on how the sun moves around, that demonstrates it is not possible for a mountain to cast a shadow, similar to the one I linked prior, onto a cloud. What it did show is that it is possible for that to happen on a spherical earth and not on a flat earth.
RM:
I think the single biggest thing to understand is that clouds are lower down that even the sky itself, this is true even in flat earth theory. Since you have understood what happens to perspective (even beyond eye-sight, due to genuine distortion based on distance and how we visually perceive reality even through a telescope) the 'up' and 'down' of the Sun is probably a total illusion just as much as it going form white to yellow to orange to red and vice versa depending how rainy the night was among other things. The way that the sun can case a shadow onto the clouds from a mountain and shine 'up onto clouds' is actually a more severely interesting thing for NASA to answer. If the sun is some massive ball of lava far, far away from us then why would the way it shines light be anything other than relatively vertical at all times? As we rotate around ourselves and then rotate around the sun, wouldn't there be a consistent angle of light? I don't mean that it wouldn't cast onto the clouds from the side or diagonally but I do mean that it should be doing it relatively identical to all the clouds at one time. Instead it appears this light-blaring disc is much closer to the sky and to us such that it shoots out at many different angles. This is supported even on the image you have. What happens with the sun shooting at an angle that results in it hitting a cloud from the side or slightly underneath is literally because the sun is actually moving. The sun is physically moving and when it's 'down' in our perspective it's not a total illusion in terms of relative to the rest of our perspective. It's genuinely moving and altering colour, this is a real linked-to-it-moving illusion that means that the very way it shines is not going to be up-down as it hits the lower side of our vision. It is identical in absurdity to why the sun turns orange and reddish. It's always really the same thing and same colour right? Why would such a powerful light alter its colour? It doesn't, even NASA supports this. Until a supernova the ends our solar system happens, the sun will remain a pretty identical colour perhaps gradually getting less white and more red as it dies out but ultimately remaining yellowish-white overall. Yet, we see it turn orange and red almost every sunset and fairly often enough at sunrise if the night wasn't rainy but the day is about to be. This is because atmosphere alters how the light appears to us. This includes the angle but usually the illusion of the sun's angle is much more consistent no matter the whether and much more dependent simply on where it is relative to our 'sky' at that moment. Our 'sky' is the 'sky' that you and I maximally see, not to the whole sky of the Earth at that moment.
The effect that happens when it's less blaring sunlight is that the squashing occurs
That would show you have no clue how light works, there is no such thing as a "squashing" effect, you're just making up childish nonsense.
-->
@Goldtop
Is it childish because you say it is? It is nonsense because it makes no sense to you?
Is it chldishs because you say it is? It is nonsense because it makes no sense to you?
I understand how light works, clearly you don't. Of course, your free to find a single scientific study to show that light creates a "squashy" effect, but I know you won't, hence what you wrote is nonsense that only a child would dream up.
-->
@Goldtop
The official tests by renowned scientists all must (by design) support round earth theory. The tests either only focus on tbe limit of eyesight and how things blur at the edge of that or they focus on mirages in highly ssunny conditions. They never decide to quwquest if the Earth is Round so even if they use telescopes, it doesn't matter. What's extremely convenient and irritating is that it is the fish eye lens that has become the go Daddy cam lens which people use to raise to the sky and back. This makes curvature appear regardless. The camera will shake so brutally as it pushes past the sky that the only interesting thing to note is that it's shaking implies outside the sky things move by magnetic pull and electromagnetic waves rather than "gravity" and also that, when not done by NASA or some such endorsed group, it shows a disc extremely bright as what the sun is and shows it very close to the sky. The spinning is so fast that it's hard to tell and even then blur and sogortion (due to fish eye lens) can be blamed.
There are plenty of videos and pics without the fish eye lens that shows curvature.What's extremely convenient and irritating is that it is the fish eye lens that has become the go Daddy cam lens which people use to raise to the sky and back. This makes curvature appear regardless
things move by magnetic pull and electromagnetic waves rather than "gravity"
And there you reveal more topics of which you have no clue.
when not done by NASA
Not one flattard has ever proven anything they claim was faked by NASA. Like yourself, they just keep making the same baseless claim.
it shows a disc extremely bright as what the sun is and shows it very close to the sky. The spinning is so fast that it's hard to tell and even then blur and sogortion (due to fish eye lens) can be blamed.
You're just making up more nonsense.
I am no longer interacting with goldtop on this thread. Please understand that you are free to ask the exact same thing as he asks or say the same thing he says unless it's bullying me and I will likely reply to you. there is an issue I have with the individual and it's triggering unpleasant emotions in me that are nothing to do with feeling outsmarted or disproved but rather ignored and misrepresented. I am not interested in engaging with this individual and stating this publicly so it's clear from now on that if you want the answer to what he says or asks me on this thread, to ask or tell me it yourself.
I am no longer interacting with goldtop on this thread.
No one is forcing you to interact with me, you're free to do what you want.
As I am free for calling out nonsense and dishonesty. Here, for example in your opening statement, you said:
The official tests by renowned scientists all must (by design) support round earth theory.
This is an obvious fabrication on your part and shows your claims can't be trusted to be credible, you'll say anything no matter how silly or dishonest.
-->
@RationalMadman
are you okay? I’m worried about you.
-->
@Ramshutu
Thanks for your worry. Anything you're particularly worried about?
-->
@RationalMadman
you appear to be supporting flat earth. That’s an alarm bell for anyone’s mental health.
-->
@Ramshutu
In and of itself, it is yes (wrongly) but thankfully the powers that be have never quite succeeded at (in any country at all) having this be grounds to put you in an asylum. They'd much rather a tame flat earther out there in society than a violent round earther out there, after all.
I obey the law and respect what it's there for, immensely so. My recent ban here was actually due to overzealous upholding of the law of this site. I know the law and respect it be it of a site or my country of residence. I am not a threat, don't attempt to connect believe in flat earth as being a threat to the law or society.
342 days later
-->
@RationalMadman
You seem to be the primary flat earth defender here. Im assuming you follow the common flat earth paradigm with antarctica around the edges, and a smaller closer sun and moon making circles over the earth.
Using this model, or some other flat earth model, can you explain how we can get both solar and lunar eclipses? They make perfect sense in a sphere/space/gravity model, can you explain them together in a single flat model?
-->
@Nemiroff
Actually they do not make sense. "Lunar Eclipse" shouldn't even be a thing at all, it is just the moon not being lit up by the sun right? Now, for a second, I'd like you to consider an eclipse that happened: https://www.space.com/13856-total-lunar-eclipse-rare-senelion.html
That is from a biased source pro-NASA on everything and even it struggles to come up with bullshit to justify the eclipse where the sun and moon were in sky at same time (and at the very least were blatantly not in the way of one another).
You see, what you are seeing in an eclipse is completely possible in a flat Earth, because indeed the moon is slightly closer to us than the sun, they are more likely to be discs than spheres though, due to how they are shaped and as we only see one side ever of the moon (impossible to tell what 'side of the sun' we're seeing). They rotate by magnetism, something I can't fully explain, but it rotates around the North Star. Outside of the sky is still indeed something where being 'pulled down' is reduced but it's not mass-based gravity at all.
-->
@RationalMadman
Your definition of lunar is not wrong, but very vague. Lunar eclipse is when the earth blocks the light of the sun from the moon. Likewise solar eclipse is when part of the earth not being lit up by the sun.
You explained how solar eclipses work by putting the moon slightly closer, but that completely negates the possibility of lunar eclipses. You said it "shouldn't be a thing," yet it is. Can you elaborate? Are all lunar eclipses optical illusions?
-->
@Nemiroff
When the moon isn't lit by the sun it doesn't even mean the Earth is entirely covering it in any significant 180 degree line. It could just as easily be tilted 'this' or 'that' way as long as the Sun isn't directly shining on it, that's common in Round Earth scenario and wouldn't be significant. It's only significant if it's a flat Earth scenario, because it means the rotations are unusually completely out of range of one another.
-->
@RationalMadman
Your right, it isnt significant in a space model as perfect alignment isnt expected, does occasionally happen, and partial vs total eclipses are seen, expected, and sufficiently explained.
However, i dont understand your flat earth explanation. Yes it is a significant issue, which is why i brought it up... but i dont see an explanation anywhere in your post. Especially if their rotations are out of range of each other as you say.
36 days later
I don't believe the earth is flat. But with that said if some one walked up to me and pointed a gun at my head and told me to prove the earth is not flat without books or the internet I could not do it. I believe the earth to be round because I must have faith in what I am being told by science in the same manner people have faith in the belief in God. I can't PERSONALLY prove or disprove the earth is flat nor prove or disprove the existence of God. All i can do is present to you what has been presented to me by someone else who also has no first hand knowledge as to whether the earth is flat or a globe. You must have faith in what you are being told is true. You cant personally prove it to yourself. You will at best convince yourself the earth to be a globe because you have already been exposed to the idea and will inherently be biased toward the accepted answer. You will never take the time and effort to simulate all the experiments needed to prove what you have been taught to believe in order to truly and honesty prove it to yourself.
-->
@sadolite
if some one walked up to me and pointed a gun at my head and told me to prove the earth is not flat without books or the internet I could not do it.
The Earth cannot be flat because of gravity. Any heavenly body with the mass of Earth or greater would be "crushed" into spherical by its own gravity.
If that body came into being by gradual accumulation of interstellar dust, it will be almost perfectly spherical.
This is why we NEVER see any heavenly body the mass of Earth that isn't spherical. The sun and moon obviously aren't flat.
Unless flat earthers are saying, only the Earth is flat, then they must be wrong. Gravity would be wobbly on a flat earth as it would diminish perceptively close to the edge, and pull you away from the edge rather than pulling you down.
I only need two things to prove the Earth is not flat to a flat earther.
1. That he be educated, and
2. That he be honest.
Short of those things, even taking him up to space in a spacecraft and showing him the spherical Earth would not convince him.
-->
@sadolite
Religion is based on faith, it is something that is meant to be believed. Science is not meant to be believed it is meant to be understood. If you don't understand science it's not science that you believe in, it's an anecdote you believe in. As far as someone asking you to prove the earth is round unless it's a science class assignment I recommend beating a hasty retreat.
-->
@Paul
Prove the earth is round using only your own verifiable research. You can not quote or use anyone else's research or data.
-->
@sadolite
You could do it the way Eratosthenes did it back in 5th century BC.
-->
@Paul
OK do it. but don't use anyone else's knowledge research or data. You are already trying to by quoting "Eratosthenes" And like my teacher always said show your work. LOL It is of course impossible to prove your work is your own as you can simply copy and paste it from known sources who already figured it out.