| @-Shinzo False. I already know every arguments about it, because I’ve been there already. What you call ‘examining arguments’ is just me examining what I already know. You know all arguments and yet this chart does not exist. Not very convincing. Also, I have never heard any where of the topological proof I gave in post #8, but I guess that Flat Earthers can not have a huge mathematical background in general. It’s like a Christian saying to a Christian-turned-Atheist that he’s blind for not examining the Christian teachings. Terrible analogy for believing in Flat Earth rather falls in the realm of religious beliefs than science. This is secondary, but justifying atheism with scientism is a very quite poor to me (if this is what you are implying). I already said, but it seems you didn't answer, so I'll ask again. Even if by some miracle, I could convince someone, what would I gain even if I were to debate my beliefs here? What reason should I prove anything to anyone? This is very easy. Basically 99% of the population believes in round Earth, and if you come to challenge millennia old theories, you are the one who needs to provide proofs. This is how science works. There is not much to gain, but if Flat Earth was a thing, you could easily give one proof (I am not asking for ten proofs), and be done with it, as you would be able to dismiss every objection people would have against it. Religion, Politics, Preference, etc can be debated because it is subjective and can’t be proven nor unproven, and I’d be glad to discuss you on those topics, but the shape of the Earth? It can be “proven” with actual experiments if one is actually seriously searching for answers, so it’s a waste of time discussing about it. I could have written this myself... While sustaining the opposite view of course. I also think that it is mostly a lost of time, but I was curious to see how people would challenge some arguments for Round Earth. If some people are willing to expose their arguments for Flat Earth, I would gladly hear them to see how they can be disproved. Since I’m here anyway, I’ve got a question I want to understand from your perspective: This is a video Debunking Flat Earth, what do you think of this experiment? This is interesting, but they should have estimated the radius of Earth at the end of the video! I can already see the argument people would have against this video; the girl moved the laser, and the helicopter part was fake. Done. Long story short, with their experiment, you arrive with some basic trigonometry to a value of 6374km for the radius of Earth (compared to the average value of 6371km). Now this is interesting from a Flat Earther point of view; for a false proof, they were really precise to get measurements in accordance to the known value of the radius of Earth! So basically, the problem is that this person wants to get an estimate of the Earth radius with two measurements (precise notations are to be found below).  For technical reasons, it will be nicer to make a rotation and a symmetry of this image to get the following. Finally, the proof of the main result. I tried to be quite detailed in the computations, but please tell you if you have any questions. |
| Flat is justice, and from the fact that there are injustice around the world the world is not flat. |
| Official account of the Eastern Roman Empire |
| Interesting perspective, you definitely know your math @Meusnier Okay then, I’ll give you a chance to change my mind. As you can see at 3:05, the white marks on the lowest of the turbines are equal no matter the distance. So according to your math that is r = a ² (km) / 2b (meter) r = (13.5)² / 2(14.296m · 10³) = 6374 Turbine A = 47 feet of missing curvature r = (14.1)² / 2(15.595m · 10³) = 6374 Turbine B = 51 feet of missing curvature r = (17.3)² / 2(23.114m · 10³) = 6374 Turbine E = 75 feet of missing curvature r = (18)² / 2(25.415m · 10³) = 6374 Turbine F = 83 Feet of missing curvature Yet based on this video that these ”scripted” scientists say + based on your math -- The helicopter shouldn’t be visible when landing from 6miles / 9.6km away. r = (9.65)² / 2(7.15· 10³) = 6374 Helicopter = behind 24 feet of curvature. At 6:30 the helicopter is not visible behind 24 feet. Yet this shows that there’s no curvature and the turbines are all aligned equally. How the turbines should look with curvature: Close-up view of the Turbines from their site: So is our world sometimes round somewhere with a curvature, but sometimes fully flat on other places all the way up to 20km without any curve? Please enlighten me with your knowledge because we Flat Earthers fail to understand these simple stuff. |
  |
| Associating flat earthers with religion just because they misinterpreted the bible for their own goals is like associating a politician quoting the bible with religion despite said politician simply doing it for their own goals. Religion has nothing to do with either, it's simply people using the bible for their own selfish ambitions and/or delusions just as one would use a tool. |
 |
Cneq said: Religion has nothing to do with either, it's simply people using the bible for their own selfish ambitions and/or delusions just as one would use a tool. Hmmmmm Mummykun said: The Earth is obviously flat, as can be perceived through the evidences and arguments used by the real scientists who defend the true shape of the Earth, while materialist fanatics just try to win the fight with silly jokes and appeal to what is commonly regarded as scientific authority by immoral people who just use the term "science" to call whatever nonsense is used as a theory to try to deconstruct the history of mankind, that is documented in the Bible, as a means to justify the immoral lives that they are living, without following God's law. I had a communist atheist "professor" in my university, fan of Nietzsche, of course, who liked to make fun of the possibility of the Earth being flat while he affirmed with full conviction that someone 'proved' that the Earth was spherical by supposedly completing a global circumnavigation five hundred years ago, which made it perfectly clear to me that he didn't care at all for the truth of the matter, and he just wanted to believe in any story, no matter how much it lacked evidence, as long as it supported the illusion that what he had believed throughout his life was the truth. The truth is that most people don't want to accept the possibility of having been deceived throughout their entire lives through schools and "science-fiction" movies that pushed the heliocentric fantasy as a reality, so they will try as much as possible to keep embracing the disinformation concerning the Flat Earth model in sites like Youtube to make people not take it seriously instead of actually studying about the matter. Totally nothing to do with it yeah |
Cneq said: Associating flat earthers with religion just because they misinterpreted the bible for their own goals is like associating a politician quoting the bible with religion despite said politician simply doing it for their own goals. Religion has nothing to do with either, it's simply people using the bible for their own selfish ambitions and/or delusions just as one would use a tool. Daniel 4:10-11 NRSV Upon my bed this is what I saw; there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth. The centre of a sphere is inside the sphere. The centre of a flat object is on it's surface. From a sphere you could not see a tree from every location on Earth but from a flat object you can. You see this same problem in Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor; And Revelation 1:7 Look! He is coming with the clouds; every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and on his account all the tribes of the earth will wail. So it is to be. Amen. |
traed said: You do realize theology is a field of study that people have pursued over centuries PRECISELY because the bible can be interrupted in innumerable ways correct?Cneq said: Associating flat earthers with religion just because they misinterpreted the bible for their own goals is like associating a politician quoting the bible with religion despite said politician simply doing it for their own goals. Religion has nothing to do with either, it's simply people using the bible for their own selfish ambitions and/or delusions just as one would use a tool. Daniel 4:10-11 NRSV Upon my bed this is what I saw; there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth. The centre of a sphere is inside the sphere. The centre of a flat object is on it's surface. From a sphere you could not see a tree from every location on Earth but from a flat object you can. You see this same problem in Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor; And Revelation 1:7 Look! He is coming with the clouds; every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and on his account all the tribes of the earth will wail. So it is to be. Amen. A running constant throughout all books of the bible is that there are various instances in which almost everything can be taken as hyperbole to illustrate the power of god and in your examples this seems to be the case as well. Even more abstract cases can be the description of angels in the book of ezekiel in which the angel had four faces one looking like a man (the front), lion (right side), ox (left side), and eagle (rear). When taking literally this is quite the interesting sight to say the least but when viewed more abstractly it could also be symbolism for the four faces representing intelligence (man), power or courage (lion), service or strength (ox), and speed or agility (eagle). Or even man (king of all), lion (king of animals), ox (king of strength), and eagle (king of birds). Or you could simply take it literally and in fact could still make sense especially when you consider how "fallen" angels look, aka demons. Demons are just fallen angels, thus wouldn't it be more fitting that angels actually just look like demons? Ox heads and hooved legs? After all, a angel that is fallen is still a angel. This is a rabbit hole you can do down almost forever and that is how these things go, people can interpreted the bible however they like and in the case of flat earthers they simply interpreted the bible to fit their conspiracy theory BS agenda, once again going back to my first point. Religion has nothing to do with flat earthers, just because people use a holy book as a tool to solidify their delusions doesn't mean said holy book has any relevance to said delusions. |
|
Bernrika said: Read my reply to traed, not going to reply the same thing twice.Cneq said: Religion has nothing to do with either, it's simply people using the bible for their own selfish ambitions and/or delusions just as one would use a tool. Hmmmmm Mummykun said: The Earth is obviously flat, as can be perceived through the evidences and arguments used by the real scientists who defend the true shape of the Earth, while materialist fanatics just try to win the fight with silly jokes and appeal to what is commonly regarded as scientific authority by immoral people who just use the term "science" to call whatever nonsense is used as a theory to try to deconstruct the history of mankind, that is documented in the Bible, as a means to justify the immoral lives that they are living, without following God's law. I had a communist atheist "professor" in my university, fan of Nietzsche, of course, who liked to make fun of the possibility of the Earth being flat while he affirmed with full conviction that someone 'proved' that the Earth was spherical by supposedly completing a global circumnavigation five hundred years ago, which made it perfectly clear to me that he didn't care at all for the truth of the matter, and he just wanted to believe in any story, no matter how much it lacked evidence, as long as it supported the illusion that what he had believed throughout his life was the truth. The truth is that most people don't want to accept the possibility of having been deceived throughout their entire lives through schools and "science-fiction" movies that pushed the heliocentric fantasy as a reality, so they will try as much as possible to keep embracing the disinformation concerning the Flat Earth model in sites like Youtube to make people not take it seriously instead of actually studying about the matter. Totally nothing to do with it yeah |
|
Cneq said: traed said: You do realize theology is a field of study that people have pursued over centuries PRECISELY because the bible can be interrupted in innumerable ways correct?Daniel 4:10-11 NRSV Upon my bed this is what I saw; there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth. The centre of a sphere is inside the sphere. The centre of a flat object is on it's surface. From a sphere you could not see a tree from every location on Earth but from a flat object you can. You see this same problem in Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor; And Revelation 1:7 Look! He is coming with the clouds; every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and on his account all the tribes of the earth will wail. So it is to be. Amen. A running constant throughout all books of the bible is that there are various instances in which almost everything can be taken as hyperbole to illustrate the power of god and in your examples this seems to be the case as well. Even more abstract cases can be the description of angels in the book of ezekiel in which the angel had four faces one looking like a man (the front), lion (right side), ox (left side), and eagle (rear). When taking literally this is quite the interesting sight to say the least but when viewed more abstractly it could also be symbolism for the four faces representing intelligence (man), power or courage (lion), service or strength (ox), and speed or agility (eagle). Or even man (king of all), lion (king of animals), ox (king of strength), and eagle (king of birds). Or you could simply take it literally and in fact could still make sense especially when you consider how "fallen" angels look, aka demons. Demons are just fallen angels, thus wouldn't it be more fitting that angels actually just look like demons? Ox heads and hooved legs? After all, a angel that is fallen is still a angel. This is a rabbit hole you can do down almost forever and that is how these things go, people can interpreted the bible however they like and in the case of flat earthers they simply interpreted the bible to fit their conspiracy theory BS agenda, once again going back to my first point. Religion has nothing to do with flat earthers, just because people use a holy book as a tool to solidify their delusions doesn't mean said holy book has any relevance to said delusions. Except it isn't just theology as an isolate it's history of religion and we know more than in the King James Bible days because of modern scriptural finding that help with interpretations and from archaeological evidence. People back then believed the earth was flat and the bible reflects the beliefs of the writers of it's time and culture. As far as evidence supports we only had a spherical earth model at around 500 BCE on aesthetic principles and not till around 300 BCE did we have Aristotle who had actually scientificly valid reasons why it would be a sphere. Demons having that appearance of hooves and horns is the work of mediaeval art adapting features of pagan gods not something from the bible. Anyway point is saying it plays no role isn't beng honest with yourself. While some may follow the path you describe where beleif in a flat earth preceeds their biblical connections the opposite can be true where their belief in the bible as a literal word of God preceeds their belief in flat earth thus their flat earth beleif is from the bible. |
traed said: Lmao you do realize you just quoted Matthews and Revelations as evidence and then you procced to say:Cneq said: You do realize theology is a field of study that people have pursued over centuries PRECISELY because the bible can be interrupted in innumerable ways correct? A running constant throughout all books of the bible is that there are various instances in which almost everything can be taken as hyperbole to illustrate the power of god and in your examples this seems to be the case as well. Even more abstract cases can be the description of angels in the book of ezekiel in which the angel had four faces one looking like a man (the front), lion (right side), ox (left side), and eagle (rear). When taking literally this is quite the interesting sight to say the least but when viewed more abstractly it could also be symbolism for the four faces representing intelligence (man), power or courage (lion), service or strength (ox), and speed or agility (eagle). Or even man (king of all), lion (king of animals), ox (king of strength), and eagle (king of birds). Or you could simply take it literally and in fact could still make sense especially when you consider how "fallen" angels look, aka demons. Demons are just fallen angels, thus wouldn't it be more fitting that angels actually just look like demons? Ox heads and hooved legs? After all, a angel that is fallen is still a angel. This is a rabbit hole you can do down almost forever and that is how these things go, people can interpreted the bible however they like and in the case of flat earthers they simply interpreted the bible to fit their conspiracy theory BS agenda, once again going back to my first point. Religion has nothing to do with flat earthers, just because people use a holy book as a tool to solidify their delusions doesn't mean said holy book has any relevance to said delusions. Except it isn't just theology as an isolate it's history of religion and we know more than in the King James Bible days because of modern scriptural finding that help with interpretations and from archaeological evidence. People back then believed the earth was flat and the bible reflects the beliefs of the writers of it's time and culture. As far as evidence supports we only had a spherical earth model at around 500 BCE on aesthetic principles and not till around 300 BCE did we have Aristotle who had actually scientificly valid reasons why it would be a sphere. Demons having that appearance of hooves and horns is the work of mediaeval art adapting features of pagan gods not something from the bible. Anyway point is saying it plays no role isn't beng honest with yourself. While some may follow the path you describe where beleif in a flat earth preceeds their biblical connections the opposite can be true where their belief in the bible as a literal word of God preceeds their belief in flat earth thus their flat earth beleif is from the bible. "As far as evidence supports we only had a spherical earth model at around 500 BCE on aesthetic principles and not till around 300 BCE did we have Aristotle who had actually scientificly valid reasons why it would be a sphere." When the entire New Testament was written in 1st century AD. Yikes. "Demons having that appearance of hooves and horns is the work of mediaeval art adapting features of pagan gods not something from the bible." Completely false, are you seriously trying to discuss theology with me while you most likely haven't even read the bible in it's entirety? The mention of hooves and horns [horns being a defining feature of an Ox] is in Ezekiel written somewhere between 592 - 500 BC "Under their wings are human hands; their legs are described as straight, and their feet like those of a calf, shining like polished brass." It's almost as if you don't realize where pagan religions actually got their influence from, it sure as shit isn't a coincidence so many religions have mention of a flood and a central "devil" and "devils" within them, not to mention many other "borrowed" assets. You are the one not being honest with yourself, or perhaps you are being honest but lack the knowledge yourself. A tool plays the role of a tool, nothing more, nothing less. To say the tool has a deep connection to the situation anymore than it's use as a tool is simply false. |
|
| The Flat Earth stuff is stupid. If we lived on a flat earth, the world would be completely different. The earth is a globe and there is a crap ton of evidence for this. Why would anyone even want to make up that the earth is a globe? What would the motivation be? |
| 'I love you because you're you. I'm happy that you're whole. I don't care if there are sides of you that I don't know, or don't like. If that's who you are, that's fine. As long as you're whole, that's enough for me.'-Kouko Kaga |
Cneq said: traed said: Lmao you do realize you just quoted Matthews and Revelations as evidence and then you procced to say:Except it isn't just theology as an isolate it's history of religion and we know more than in the King James Bible days because of modern scriptural finding that help with interpretations and from archaeological evidence. People back then believed the earth was flat and the bible reflects the beliefs of the writers of it's time and culture. As far as evidence supports we only had a spherical earth model at around 500 BCE on aesthetic principles and not till around 300 BCE did we have Aristotle who had actually scientificly valid reasons why it would be a sphere. Demons having that appearance of hooves and horns is the work of mediaeval art adapting features of pagan gods not something from the bible. Anyway point is saying it plays no role isn't beng honest with yourself. While some may follow the path you describe where beleif in a flat earth preceeds their biblical connections the opposite can be true where their belief in the bible as a literal word of God preceeds their belief in flat earth thus their flat earth beleif is from the bible. "As far as evidence supports we only had a spherical earth model at around 500 BCE on aesthetic principles and not till around 300 BCE did we have Aristotle who had actually scientificly valid reasons why it would be a sphere." When the entire New Testament was written in 1st century AD. Yikes. "Demons having that appearance of hooves and horns is the work of mediaeval art adapting features of pagan gods not something from the bible." Completely false, are you seriously trying to discuss theology with me while you most likely haven't even read the bible in it's entirety? The mention of hooves and horns [horns being a defining feature of an Ox] is in Ezekiel written somewhere between 592 - 500 BC "Under their wings are human hands; their legs are described as straight, and their feet like those of a calf, shining like polished brass." It's almost as if you don't realize where pagan religions actually got their influence from, it sure as shit isn't a coincidence so many religions have mention of a flood and a central "devil" and "devils" within them, not to mention many other "borrowed" assets. You are the one not being honest with yourself, or perhaps you are being honest but lack the knowledge yourself. A tool plays the role of a tool, nothing more, nothing less. To say the tool has a deep connection to the situation anymore than it's use as a tool is simply false. Sure I wasn't keeping time frames in mind as the focus there just scripture on how even in NT it carried on many flat earth type implications as the OT so it's reasonable to suspect the possibility that is a literal belief of at least some of the authors. I can give older examples from the OT if you like. It's not like the OT isn't part of the bible and your original statement was about the bible not all Christianity as a whole. Sorry I wasn't clear enough how I communicated this. Knowledge of the spherical shape of the Earth was received in scholarship of Late Antiquity as a matter of course, in both Neoplatonism and Early Christianity. Theological doubt informed by the flat Earth model implied in the Hebrew Bible inspired some early Christian scholars such as Lactantius, John Chrysostom and Athanasius of Alexandria, but this remained an eccentric current and learned Christian authors like Basil of Caesarea, Ambrose and Augustine of Hippo were clearly aware of the sphericity of the Earth. "Flat Earthism" lingered longest in Syriac Christianity, which tradition laid greater importance on a literalist interpretation of the Old Testament, and authors from that tradition such as Cosmas Indicopleustes presented the Earth as flat as late as in the 6th century. This last remnant of the ancient model of the cosmos disappeared during the 7th century, and from the 8th century and the beginning medieval period, "no cosmographer worthy of note has called into question the sphericity of the Earth." https://history.wikia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth As you can see while it's true most educated Christians of the West believed in a spherical earth during the middle ages even at that period in early middle ages there did exist flat earthers and even a whole major branch of Christianity that all it's followers were flat earthers so it's perfectly reasonable to assume this transition from a flat earth view to a spherical one did not happen all at once among the Jews in late antiquity who some of which would later became Christians and it could have carried on among some Christians for a while. Unfortunately I cant find anything more detailed than the information above. Nothing really says in detail what happened in late antiquity on cosmological views for the relevant regions that I could find. Regardless even back in middle ages it was well documented that there were Christians who believed in a flat Earth because of their religious beliefs . Yet you neglect to outright say what that reason is. Are you suggesting it's because it's based on true things? Then that makes the bible not unique. ..or are you saying Judeo-Christian stuff came first? Then you're gravely misinformed. The Book of Genesis is only dated to the 6th or 5th century BC. The documented flood myths from the Babylonians, Akkadians, and Sumerians all long predate that and they are the same story format a great flood kills all except the chosen a god warned who got on a boat. Even if you thought Moses wrote Genesis his supposed existence only goes back reportedly to 14th century BC hundreds of years after this flood myth were recorded by non Jews. As for horned deities those didn't originate in Christianity or even Judaism. There is older even in the same region such as the Canaanite/Mesopotamian god Hadad who is depicted with bull horns which on record predates Judaism's existence by hundreds of years. That bit from Ezekiel you failed to mention it is about cherubs not devils/demons/whateveryouwannacallthem. Where in the bible does it say all fallen angels are cherubs? You also neglected to mention that's the same place it mentions the four faces which is not part of the mediaeval imagery. Mediaeval imagery only had two faces at most iirc and it was a crotch face oddly enough. If you try to fall back on symbolism you would be unintentionally suggesting demons possess the qualities of high ranking angels which if the bible does not say or infer all the fallen were cherubs then this suggests disobeying God improved some of their character. So yeah that imagery is not directly attached to the fallen angels in the bible just as I had said. |
traed said: It seems you've gone on a tangent refuting claims I never made, let me quickly correct you.Cneq said: Lmao you do realize you just quoted Matthews and Revelations as evidence and then you procced to say: "As far as evidence supports we only had a spherical earth model at around 500 BCE on aesthetic principles and not till around 300 BCE did we have Aristotle who had actually scientificly valid reasons why it would be a sphere." When the entire New Testament was written in 1st century AD. Yikes. "Demons having that appearance of hooves and horns is the work of mediaeval art adapting features of pagan gods not something from the bible." Completely false, are you seriously trying to discuss theology with me while you most likely haven't even read the bible in it's entirety? The mention of hooves and horns [horns being a defining feature of an Ox] is in Ezekiel written somewhere between 592 - 500 BC "Under their wings are human hands; their legs are described as straight, and their feet like those of a calf, shining like polished brass." It's almost as if you don't realize where pagan religions actually got their influence from, it sure as shit isn't a coincidence so many religions have mention of a flood and a central "devil" and "devils" within them, not to mention many other "borrowed" assets. You are the one not being honest with yourself, or perhaps you are being honest but lack the knowledge yourself. A tool plays the role of a tool, nothing more, nothing less. To say the tool has a deep connection to the situation anymore than it's use as a tool is simply false. Sure I wasn't keeping time frames in mind as the focus there just scripture on how even in NT it carried on many flat earth type implications as the OT so it's reasonable to suspect the possibility that is a literal belief of at least some of the authors. I can give older examples from the OT if you like. It's not like the OT isn't part of the bible and your original statement was about the bible not all Christianity as a whole. Sorry I wasn't clear enough how I communicated this. Knowledge of the spherical shape of the Earth was received in scholarship of Late Antiquity as a matter of course, in both Neoplatonism and Early Christianity. Theological doubt informed by the flat Earth model implied in the Hebrew Bible inspired some early Christian scholars such as Lactantius, John Chrysostom and Athanasius of Alexandria, but this remained an eccentric current and learned Christian authors like Basil of Caesarea, Ambrose and Augustine of Hippo were clearly aware of the sphericity of the Earth. "Flat Earthism" lingered longest in Syriac Christianity, which tradition laid greater importance on a literalist interpretation of the Old Testament, and authors from that tradition such as Cosmas Indicopleustes presented the Earth as flat as late as in the 6th century. This last remnant of the ancient model of the cosmos disappeared during the 7th century, and from the 8th century and the beginning medieval period, "no cosmographer worthy of note has called into question the sphericity of the Earth." https://history.wikia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth As you can see while it's true most educated Christians of the West believed in a spherical earth during the middle ages even at that period in early middle ages there did exist flat earthers and even a whole major branch of Christianity that all it's followers were flat earthers so it's perfectly reasonable to assume this transition from a flat earth view to a spherical one did not happen all at once among the Jews in late antiquity who some of which would later became Christians and it could have carried on among some Christians for a while. Unfortunately I cant find anything more detailed than the information above. Nothing really says in detail what happened in late antiquity on cosmological views for the relevant regions that I could find. Regardless even back in middle ages it was well documented that there were Christians who believed in a flat Earth because of their religious beliefs . Yet you neglect to outright say what that reason is. Are you suggesting it's because it's based on true things? Then that makes the bible not unique. ..or are you saying Judeo-Christian stuff came first? Then you're gravely misinformed. The Book of Genesis is only dated to the 6th or 5th century BC. The documented flood myths from the Babylonians, Akkadians, and Sumerians all long predate that and they are the same story format a great flood kills all except the chosen a god warned who got on a boat. Even if you thought Moses wrote Genesis his supposed existence only goes back reportedly to 14th century BC hundreds of years after this flood myth were recorded by non Jews. As for horned deities those didn't originate in Christianity or even Judaism. There is older even in the same region such as the Canaanite/Mesopotamian god Hadad who is depicted with bull horns which on record predates Judaism's existence by hundreds of years. That bit from Ezekiel you failed to mention it is about cherubs not devils/demons/whateveryouwannacallthem. Where in the bible does it say all fallen angels are cherubs? You also neglected to mention that's the same place it mentions the four faces which is not part of the mediaeval imagery. Mediaeval imagery only had two faces at most iirc and it was a crotch face oddly enough. If you try to fall back on symbolism you would be unintentionally suggesting demons possess the qualities of high ranking angels which if the bible does not say or infer all the fallen were cherubs then this suggests disobeying God improved some of their character. So yeah that imagery is not directly attached to the fallen angels in the bible just as I had said. In terms of you bringing up some Christians did and some Christians didn't that is my entire point, PEOPLE used the bible as a tool to reinforce whatever beliefs they just so happened to hold and this is the case both in ancient times all the way up to this very small "flat-earth" revival moment that's only really sprung up in the last few decades or so after being absolutely killed in the 20th century almost entirely. Both Christians AND non Christians had a discourse of some that viewed the world as flat and some that didn't and also those in the middle who were too busy being serfs or slaves to give a shit about what shape the world is. Same can be said today albeit this modern abomination of a movement is most likely less than 1% of the global population and consists of people who distort gods word for their own purposes, in which is a direct insult to god and anyone who does so no matter what they claim to be is by no means a "Christian". Just because the Catholics called themselves "Christians" didn't mean shit if they went directly against gods word and used it as a tool for extortion and control, this fundamental disagreement shaped European history forever, if not the entire world. The hollow logic you seem to be grasping is the same type of flawed logic of blaming the entire Muslim faith of being terrorists just because a certain group of freaks decided to intercept the Quran a certain way. Just because a group or an individual uses a holy book as a tool to fuel their own delusions doesn't mean the fundamental root of those delusions is the content of the holy book. You don't blame the match or the inventor of the match because someone burnt down a house, you don't blame the inventor or manufacturer of a car because someone ran a group of people over and you sure as shit don't blame a piece of writing for whatever actions or delusions that stem from it. "Yet you neglect to outright say what that reason is. Are you suggesting it's because it's based on true things? Then that makes the bible not unique. ..or are you saying Judeo-Christian stuff came first? Then you're gravely misinformed. The Book of Genesis is only dated to the 6th or 5th century BC. The documented flood myths from the Babylonians, Akkadians, and Sumerians all long predate that and they are the same story format a great flood kills all except the chosen a god warned who got on a boat. Even if you thought Moses wrote Genesis his supposed existence only goes back reportedly to 14th century BC hundreds of years after this flood myth were recorded by non Jews. As for horned deities those didn't originate in Christianity or even Judaism. There is older even in the same region such as the Canaanite/Mesopotamian god Hadad who is depicted with bull horns which on record predates Judaism's existence by hundreds of years." Not one did I say the bible came first, I said PAGAN beliefs such as the mythologies of the Norse, Celtic and every other newer age pagan religion that influenced medieval works came after. Once again I ask myself if you have even read the bible yourself, you do realize even in the old testament the ongoing theme for many books was the jews worshipping other gods correct? It's blatantly obvious not only that Judaism wasn't the first but LITERALLY as the old testament was being written the faiths of the places these Jews inhabited had religions that well outclassed the beliefs as the jews, in which, once again, through the entire old testament, the jews converted to these said religions. "That bit from Ezekiel you failed to mention it is about cherubs not devils/demons/whateveryouwannacallthem. Where in the bible does it say all fallen angels are cherubs? You also neglected to mention that's the same place it mentions the four faces which is not part of the mediaeval imagery. Mediaeval imagery only had two faces at most iirc and it was a crotch face oddly enough. If you try to fall back on symbolism you would be unintentionally suggesting demons possess the qualities of high ranking angels which if the bible does not say or infer all the fallen were cherubs then this suggests disobeying God improved some of their character. So yeah that imagery is not directly attached to the fallen angels in the bible just as I had said." You seems to missed the entire point I was making. The entire point was that the bible is something ANYONE can take however they like, either literally or filled with symbolism and connecting dots that don't exist. There's a reason there's literally dozens of branches of Christianity and most still can't agree with each other even till this day. Can you confirm if you've actually sat down and THOROUGHLY read through the bible? If you haven't devoted the 6-7 months required to read through the very thing you're trying to debate about you're simply in no position for debate, there's no excuse for laziness even if you detest the bible for all it's worth. Just because I personally disagree with Islam doesn't mean I myself didn't take months literally reading through the entire Quran in it's entirety, if you don't have the time to actually educate yourself you're opinions are simply not your own and consist of you parroting the opinions of others that you quote in articles you link. |
|
Well checkmate flat-earthers, I have exposed all of you. |
 |
Damn I couldn't see a better explanation than the one you just made. lol |
| If the Earth was a globe then planes would fly into the Moon. I drawed a very scientific diagram.  |
 |
| Tbh it sounds like a really cool concept to explore in sci-fi stories! And there's a few different versions of the flat earth concept to use too. Too bad people can't be mature about it so they'll just tear into each other and try to convert to their side the moment you utter the words "flat earth". </3 |
That's the only scientific flat earth explanation I'll ever accept. |
-Shinzo said: Interesting perspective, you definitely know your math @Meusnier Okay then, I’ll give you a chance to change my mind. As you can see at 3:05, the white marks on the lowest of the turbines are equal no matter the distance. So according to your math that is r = a ² (km) / 2b (meter) r = (13.5)² / 2(14.296m · 10³) = 6374 Turbine A = 47 feet of missing curvature r = (14.1)² / 2(15.595m · 10³) = 6374 Turbine B = 51 feet of missing curvature r = (17.3)² / 2(23.114m · 10³) = 6374 Turbine E = 75 feet of missing curvature r = (18)² / 2(25.415m · 10³) = 6374 Turbine F = 83 Feet of missing curvature Yet based on this video that these ”scripted” scientists say + based on your math -- The helicopter shouldn’t be visible when landing from 6miles / 9.6km away. r = (9.65)² / 2(7.15· 10³) = 6374 Helicopter = behind 24 feet of curvature. At 6:30 the helicopter is not visible behind 24 feet. Yet this shows that there’s no curvature and the turbines are all aligned equally. How the turbines should look with curvature: Close-up view of the Turbines from their site: So is our world sometimes round somewhere with a curvature, but sometimes fully flat on other places all the way up to 20km without any curve? Please enlighten me with your knowledge because we Flat Earthers fail to understand these simple stuff. I am sorry for the delay, but I had to read dozens of papers on the topic to have a good idea of the field. I also wanted to give an exact formula for the horizon using the data given in the one-hour long original video that I watched entirely, but it is in fact impossible. Please find below the basic explanation why the horizon is always at a greater distance than the one given by the formula I gave above. Now please find below the screenshots of the video of "Dr. John D." Did you notice at least that "Dr. John Doe" likely was not a doctor but more probably did not even exist? If this person existed, he would not have to hide behind a pseudonym to make such videos. Finally done with this reply that haunted me during six months! P.S. Most of articles are not available freely, so please tell me if you would like to receive some pdf not available in almost legal websites. The lack of Open Source is detrimental to science, society and truth. |
| We're not living in some middle ages to still believe in such a false think as flat earth, if you don't believe in it just book a ship and swim around the globe and you'll see the answer especially that ships trips aren't that much expensive (? Not sure about that). I've been flying alot of times on plane and even on plane you can see on your own eyes what is the real shape of globe, not to mention that already people in ancient time had ideas about earth being a sphere and were able to calculate the equator (? is that how you call it in english). The same thing is almost with "fabrication" of the footage of Apollo going to the moon with Neil Armstrong just because the flag was "waving" on the air, forgetting that there is no atmosphere so any movement will not suddenly stop like in earth, so it will wave very likely. To quote the classic:  |
ezikialrage said: Fate_Saber88 said: I want to start with a biblical verse, which is really important, as there is an intimate relationship between Flat Earth, Trumpism, and religion. I don't mean to blame religion for Flat Earth, despite being exactly that, but it's not what I mean at all. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. -Luke 12:2 You guys know, the truth is out there. Honestly, if I were an astronaut I wouldn't reveal the earth is flat or that God exists I would delve into Time Warp and stuff like this. Isn't it so obvious, use a meter and go straight to the horizon, I'll see that it will not bend! Just use your head! Honestly, the reasons that make people believe in stuff like this and what their pastors and politicians say is beyond comprehension. Do you believe in Flat Earth, Great Ice wall and stuff like this? What is your opinion on Flat Earthers? I don't think flat earthers really exist. I think those claiming the earth is flat are internet trolls trying to screw with people and nothing more. No... They do. I worked with one. I seriously thought the guy was a highly functional person with mental illness, because he believed in a lot of other crazy theories too. The biggest argument he tried to enforce is: "If you have only seen pictures the government has shown you, then you have no idea what the Earth's shape is." Then he would direct you a bunch of fringe videos online. My other co-workers would humor him; I didn't have the patience to. I just overheard him chatting with impressionable young guys. |
You mean you haven't heard? Our planet is a globe of ice. |
| その目だれの目？ |
| I can’t believe you clowns still think that the Earth is a circle. Clearly all the world maps are square and flat proving my theory that earth is flat once more |
| feelin cute, might die of stress and organ failure soon |
| @Meusnier I told you I was going to give you a chance to change my mind, then it took you 6months just to reply with "Refraction" which is sorry to say, laughable, and without even answering my question as to why the turbines are all equally aligned without being blocked by the curvature. Turbine Also if you see my post before, Discovery Channel deleted their supposed Flat Earth debunking video. You can’t find that video anywhere anymore—as to why..? Skip to 2:00 ___ Edit: I can see that you've put so much effort in research for these past months. I've read what you posted, the calculations and reasoning why certain atmospheric conditions, right temperatures, humidity and all that can cause refraction. BUT THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME I've been given "Refraction" as an answer, and as a matter of fact, I already knew you were going to answer that before I even posted it in January (as it was with all the people I've discussed this topic with.) Wasn't going to edit this but later realized you worked hard for this one so I edited it just to give appreciation and kudos to you. There's really nothing for me (or you?) to gain in furthering this discussion and I see it as something I'm not interested anymore. |
-ShinzoJul 6, 2021 12:04 PM
|
-Shinzo said: It comes as no surprise that one must take his sweet time to derive conclusions through excessive research, for an actual research takes up a considerable amount of one's time, unlike the superficial viewing of moving pictures.@Meusnier I told you I was going to give you a chance to change my mind, then it took you 6months just to reply with "Refraction" which is sorry to say, laughable, and without even answering my question as to why the turbines are all equally aligned without being blocked by the curvature. Turbine Also if you see my post before, Discovery Channel deleted their supposed Flat Earth debunking video. You can’t find that video anywhere anymore—as to why..? Skip to 2:00 ___ Well I’ve lost interest and I’ll just say you’re right and end it here. |
  “The most shameless thing in the world is political power that can be inherited regardless of ability or talent!” |
| I don't really care since we have more important issues than debating weather the Earth is flat. |
 In this world shrouded in darkness, I learned there was someone who’d been struggling along with me. That alone is enough.  |
-Shinzo said: I guess we'll just have to raise enough money to send you to space along with Jeff Bezos. His head will not be the only round thing in your vision in his spacecraft. @Meusnier I told you I was going to give you a chance to change my mind, then it took you 6months just to reply with "Refraction" which is sorry to say, laughable, and without even answering my question as to why the turbines are all equally aligned without being blocked by the curvature. Turbine Also if you see my post before, Discovery Channel deleted their supposed Flat Earth debunking video. You can’t find that video anywhere anymore—as to why..? Skip to 2:00 ___ Edit: I can see that you've put so much effort in research for these past months. I've read what you posted, the calculations and reasoning why certain atmospheric conditions, right temperatures, humidity and all that can cause refraction. BUT THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME I've been given "Refraction" as an answer, and as a matter of fact, I already knew you were going to answer that before I even posted it in January (as it was with all the people I've discussed this topic with.) Wasn't going to edit this but later realized you worked hard for this one so I edited it just to give appreciation and kudos to you. There's really nothing for me (or you?) to gain in furthering this discussion and I see it as something I'm not interested anymore. |
| Fear my hallowed wrath! He who promotes the error Dies as a vile fool; Though, the satirist's sharp barbs Save his name from oblivion. -Shinzo said: @Meusnier I told you I was going to give you a chance to change my mind, then it took you 6months just to reply with "Refraction" which is sorry to say, laughable, and without even answering my question as to why the turbines are all equally aligned without being blocked by the curvature. Turbine Also if you see my post before, Discovery Channel deleted their supposed Flat Earth debunking video. You can’t find that video anywhere anymore—as to why..? Skip to 2:00 ___ Well I’ve lost interest and I’ll just say you’re right and end it here. I wrote all this before your edit, but since it did not change the first part of your message, I do not think that this is fair that I temper my words. As you can imagine, reading that made me slightly upset. Your laugh is bitter. Hiding your depravity Is impossible. The lights of eternal truth Shall see through your deceptions. I knew about it, but I was wasting my time from the start. It was an interesting social experiment though. "Conspiracism is a mental illness." Nabe. Do you have any vague idea of the time it takes to write such a reply? Do you really think so highly of yourself to believe that I will waste my time trying to educate someone of bad faith? Have you even read what I had written? I doubt that you understood much about, and admitting it would have been more honest. For your information, I learnt about geodesy during my free time, and learning about a field you do not know about means spending several hours finding the relevant articles and books, reading them, checking references, and finally writing on it. Those dozens of hours that you have never spent learning this topic show that the only laughable thing here is your patronizing attitude. "I accept that you change my mind." And who are you exactly? A random guy on the internet I was kind enough to converse with calmly on such a trivial topic. Do not expect me to waste time spent on real mathematics to remedy your lacking education. Atmospheric refraction is the phenomenon showing why the observation of far distances over sea is not an experimentum crucis to determine whether the Earth is flat or not. However, if you could observe in daylight objects placed 300km away, that would be a good indication of Earth's flatness. Where are the pictures? Your video was fighting a straw man: the basic formula I gave above that always underestimate the real distance to the horizon. Let me quote the relevant images here.   Do you know what aligned even means? You can see the turbine at the largest distance thanks to atmospheric refraction (the same phenomenon that causes mirages), ergo the others. And the turbines are not horizontally aligned... The vertical alignment will not change though...  Have you read any scientific articles on the topic? What is your exact knowledge about optics, geodesy and mathematics? If you cannot have an educated opinion about a topic, you better stay silent. Saying that the Earth is Flat is an extraordinary claim that implies that you should prove it and indicate why the proofs of the negation of this claim are wrong. If all of your knowledge is based on videos made by so-called "Doctors of Science," consider yourself ignorant. On the video made by Discovery Channel, it is a perfect illustration showing why you should not base your knowledge on youtube videos... I cannot explain why it was removed, and I cannot know either whether the edited footage corresponds to the original video. Now, when it comes to the video of Dr. John Doe, I could notice more incoherences that I shall now present. In this video, the self-styled Doctor went as far as giving wrong information for the weather! Indeed, they corresponded to weather data in late May and not early August! See first the images given by the self-styled Doctor:    Even the city changed! It can be checked by the sunrise and sunset values: on the 6th of August 2020, the sunrise was at 5:36 and the sunset at 20:38.  https://meteogram.org/sun/united-kingdom/worthing/ Now, in the image given below, not only we see that the next days are in May (!), but that the sunrise is at 4:56 and the sunset at 21:02. Needless to say, I had already noticed this fact long ago but did not mention it above since it was not so important considering how awful this video was. However, this fact alone should have been enough to discredit entirely whosoever made the video. Since we can see that the next day is the 29th May 2020, that suggest that the screenshot was taken on the 28th of May 2020, and indeed, looking at another website gives a sunrise at 4:56 and a sunset at 21:01 the 28th of May (a one minute difference is not significant).  https://meteogram.org/sun/united-kingdom/worthing/ He lied about the definition of horizon. He ignored the existence of refraction. He fought against a toy model. He lied openly about the weather data. This is a prime example of bad faith: why mentioning the weather when he never uses it? And worse, giving false data (it cannot be a "mistake", there is a will to deceive) is only worthy of infinite contempt. He made a section on the "eagle eye", but forgot about Meusnier's one. He should hang. How do you explain the shape of the sun during sunset with a Flat Earth model? Still waiting. Where is your global planar chart of the Earth where all distances are preserved? It does not exist by virtue of Gauss's Theorema Egregium. But of course, you have no knowledge of differential geometry. I might write on it, but that would be like feeding swine with ambrosia. Well I’ve lost interest and I’ll just say you’re right and end it here. Oh no, you will not get away that easily by this kind of easy remarks. Either admit that your opinion on Flat Earth is based on religion or try challenging any of the points above. Good luck. You lost interest, but did not lose faith, what a joke! This is basically La Bruyère saying that arguments against the existence of God are stupid and even going as far as saying that he would not even lend hear to them anyway... This is the flat zero level of philosophy. I should be the one to say that I lost interest trying to educate you, though I did not. Why? Because I have spent more than 40,000 hours of my life studying the truth. Now about the edit. Edit: I can see that you've put so much effort in research for these past months. I've read what you posted, the calculations and reasoning why certain atmospheric conditions, right temperatures, humidity and all that can cause refraction. BUT THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME I've been given "Refraction" as an answer, and as a matter of fact, I already knew you were going to answer that before I even posted it in January (as it was with all the people I've discussed this topic with.) Wasn't going to edit this but later realized you worked hard for this one so I edited it just to give appreciation and kudos to you. There's really nothing for me (or you?) to gain in furthering this discussion and I see it as something I'm not interested anymore. Have you spent a similar effort studying the field? I have read hundreds of pages on the topic, and had to spend a lot of time just finding the right references online or physically. This cannot be done in a day or even a week. I've read what you posted, the calculations and reasoning why certain atmospheric conditions, right temperatures, humidity and all that can cause refraction. Not certain atmospheric conditions, atmospheric refraction always occurs, but the exact magnification of distances depends on all those meteorological parameters. BUT THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME I've been given "Refraction" as an answer, and as a matter of fact, I already knew you were going to answer that before I even posted it in January (as it was with all the people I've discussed this topic with.) And? Anyone using big caps is either mentally unstable of Harry Potter in the fifth volume of In Search of Lost Souls. Time to write a new tale. Tale of Prime Numbers Meusnier said: Heart is a young and lively girl who was always talking with her friends during the mathematics lectures during school. Now a psychology student, she likes to laugh with her friends about the mathematicians who speak of abstruse and terse concepts such as infinite dimensional vector spaces, Levi-Civita connections, complex structures on six-dimensional spheres, zeroes of a function having the amusing name of a Greek letter that the mere sight make her giggle, etc. Once at a party, Heart decides under the complicit gaze of her female friends to make fun of the awkward mathematics student Herbert who stays in a corner, reading silently Federer's treatise and who only came here after losing a bet with his rare friends. "Hey, Herbert, what are you doing all alone?" started Heart with a jovial smile. "— I am not alone, I am with my mathematical friends..." replied Herbert with a monotonous and blasé voice. "— Still a weirdo I see ha ha!" She exchanged an amused glance with her friends. "So, it seems that you guys pretend that there are infinitely many prime numbers. You really have to be stupid to believe that!" "— Do you know about Euclid's proof?" "— No, why should I know about it?" "— Because you made a claim about this topic... So the proof goes as follows: assume that there are only n prime numbers and consider their product and add one to this number. Can you do that?" "— I guess I can. What is n?" "— I have just defined it. Take it equal to 17 if you wish. Anyway, no one thinks about geometry in dimension 17, people merely think in dimension n and then take n=17." "— Was it supposed to be funny?" interrupted Heart with a smirk. "— Let's go back to the proof, will you?" continued angrily Herbert. "Then this number cannot be prime since it is bigger to every prime number. Therefore, it is divisible by a prime number, say p. But this prime number p also divides the product of all prime numbers. If you divide two numbers, you also divide their sum or difference, which shows that p divides 1, which is impossible! Therefore, the set of prime numbers is infinite! "— Wait, isn't 1 a prime number? Anyway, I knew that you were going to say that before I even asked..." "— Does it make it wrong?" "— No, but my world view will not change that easily..." "— Then please stop making me lose my time." ended Herbert after closing violently Federer's book, which made a page containing the definition of flat currents fly and end up in a puddle of nauseous beer. If all these people said the same thing, it might be because they were right. Do you doubt about Snel's law? It is an empirical observation children can make with broken sticks in water. "I had already been told about this truth." I have no idea what kind of logical fallacy this is, but it is an extremely obvious one. Congratulations on making me use this forbidden word. Wasn't going to edit this but later realized you worked hard for this one so I edited it just to give appreciation and kudos to you. I am happy that you realised this after writing your dismissive reply. There's really nothing for me (or you?) to gain in furthering this discussion and I see it as something I'm not interested anymore. Indeed, I devoted as much time and energy as it was humanly possible to me, and will certainly not spend another full Sunday from 10am to 8pm writing up such a reply. Thank you for your kind support, Luchse. "Ha ha ha, Perelman took seven years to prove the Poincaré conjecture! What a loser!" operationvalkyri said: I guess we'll just have to raise enough money to send you to space along with Jeff Bezos. His head will not be the only round thing in your vision in his spacecraft. It should not be necessary to go so far normally. Thank you for pointing out the obvious, Valkyri-chan. strob3 said: I don't really care since we have more important issues than debating weather the Earth is flat. Yes, like deciding who is the best girl in Monogatari. Sodachi>Senjougahara>all obviously. It is supposed to be satire or do you believe that? I shall not assume anything here. Zettaiken said: We're not living in some middle ages to still believe in such a false think as flat earth, if you don't believe in it just book a ship and swim around the globe and you'll see the answer especially that ships trips aren't that much expensive (? Not sure about that). I've been flying alot of times on plane and even on plane you can see on your own eyes what is the real shape of globe, not to mention that already people in ancient time had ideas about earth being a sphere and were able to calculate the equator (? is that how you call it in english). The same thing is almost with "fabrication" of the footage of Apollo going to the moon with Neil Armstrong just because the flag was "waving" on the air, forgetting that there is no atmosphere so any movement will not suddenly stop like in earth, so it will wave very likely. To quote the classic: I know that you meant well, but you said a few inaccurate things here. First, people did not believe in Flat Earth in the Middle Ages, and even the Ancient Greeks knew about it. Those kind of "visual" arguments will never convince Flat Earthers sadly. In fact, the flag would definitely not wave! This is one of the only "arguments" of the Moon Landing conspiracy theorists, and a very poor one. In fact, NASA used metal bars to maintain the flag in the "waving" position!  https://www.forbes.com/sites/kionasmith/2019/07/20/how-apollo-11-raised-the-flag-on-the-moon-and-what-it-means-today/?sh=1e58f0f36f9e The Apollo 12 mission's flag was dysfunctional and therefore did not wave. Dang!  Conspiracy theorists are wannabe mathematicians, but they forgot that as much as you wave your hands, that will never make you fly. *** *** *** So much efforts in vain! Again! |
Meusnier said: It is supposed to be satire or do you believe that? I shall not assume anything here. It is a writing prompt for science fiction. |
| その目だれの目？ |
| Imagine getting so worked up about someone having different opinion than you. You should work on that. The reason I won't take your answer seriously is because of refraction. Imagine saying the turbines are being refracted and what? Not even an inch of curvature blockage? Even the refraction is now magically taking into consideration the distance of the curvature to make them perfectly aligned? You told me you agree about the Discovery Channel experiment where the Helicopter was 24-feet fully blocked by the curvature just 6miles away. Now this is up to 12 miles and not even an inch of blockage because of "Magic" Meusnier said: And the turbines are not horizontally aligned... Perspective: As the object moves farther away, the visual angle decreases, making the object appear smaller.  You can have all the degree you can boast about, but if your answer is bullshit, then I'm not gonna take it seriously. traed said: You just playing devils advocate or are you actually serious? Are you willing to do some simple experiments? Well I've said on my previous posts that I'm not here to argue, but to learn. If people are really interested in knowing the truth about Flat Earth then they can do the experiment themselves. No need to waste my time spoon-feeding people, nor prove myself just to win some imaginary prize. Meusnier is just basing his arguments using the Globe calculations which was taught to him at school. He's not doing the observable, repeatable experiments himself, why don't you ask him. ___ Probably not gonna reply on this thread anymore as to not escalate unnecessary drama from people getting worked up that might get this thread locked. |
|
-Shinzo said: traed said: Well I've said on my previous posts that I'm not here to argue, but to learn. If people are really interested in knowing the truth about Flat Earth then they can do the experiment themselves. You just playing devils advocate or are you actually serious? Are you willing to do some simple experiments? No need to waste my time spoon-feeding people, nor prove myself just to win some imaginary prize. Meusnier is just basing his arguments using the Globe calculations which was taught to him at school. He's not doing the observable, repeatable experiments himself, why don't you ask him. ___ Probably not gonna reply on this thread anymore as to not escalate unnecessary drama from people getting worked up that might get this thread locked. So in other words you're unwilling to listen to someone giving you something to do that you can see for yourself ? What experiments are you claiming? How can you expect someone to do something when you wont do likewise? I dont care about meusnirs math nerd shit that's just overly conplicating something easy and simple. Math only really is needed for certain calculations. |
traedJul 6, 2021 7:36 PM
| I've personally always believed that the earth is a doughnut, it's just what the science points to. |
 |
| I consider myself an enjoyer of the earth which resembles the shape of a dinosaur. |
KameloofJul 7, 2021 8:13 AM
 |
Meusnier said: operationvalkyri said: I guess we'll just have to raise enough money to send you to space along with Jeff Bezos. His head will not be the only round thing in your vision in his spacecraft. It should not be necessary to go so far normally. Thank you for pointing out the obvious, Valkyri-chan. Alright then, we'll just pay for him to go around the world in 80 days. |
| This thread is cool. But I think the world is square. |
| Flat earth implies you believe in earth |
 _______I like rocks__  |
Of course the Earth is flat, don't be ridiculous...the Great Space Turtle wouldn't be able to balance a ball on it's back. |
Bobby2HandsJul 10, 2021 2:51 PM
|
-Shinzo said: Imagine getting so worked up about someone having different opinion than you. You should work on that. The reason I won't take your answer seriously is because of refraction. Imagine saying the turbines are being refracted and what? Not even an inch of curvature blockage? Even the refraction is now magically taking into consideration the distance of the curvature to make them perfectly aligned? You told me you agree about the Discovery Channel experiment where the Helicopter was 24-feet fully blocked by the curvature just 6miles away. Now this is up to 12 miles and not even an inch of blockage because of "Magic" Meusnier said: And the turbines are not horizontally aligned... Perspective: As the object moves farther away, the visual angle decreases, making the object appear smaller. You can have all the degree you can boast about, but if your answer is bullshit, then I'm not gonna take it seriously. traed said: You just playing devils advocate or are you actually serious? Are you willing to do some simple experiments? Well I've said on my previous posts that I'm not here to argue, but to learn. If people are really interested in knowing the truth about Flat Earth then they can do the experiment themselves. No need to waste my time spoon-feeding people, nor prove myself just to win some imaginary prize. Meusnier is just basing his arguments using the Globe calculations which was taught to him at school. He's not doing the observable, repeatable experiments himself, why don't you ask him. ___ Probably not gonna reply on this thread anymore as to not escalate unnecessary drama from people getting worked up that might get this thread locked. Imagine getting so worked up about someone having different opinion than you. You should work on that. This is not a topic where "opinions" matter, Mr. Middle Ground, Mr. Tolerant, Mr. Democrat, Mr. This-is-not-because-I-have-no-idea-of-this-topic-that-my-opinion-does-not-matter. Keep your advice for yourself, I am not the one who disbelieves direct evidences. We are not discussing about politics here but about a direct observation of the visible Universe that simply does not depend of your personal opinion. That should not come as a surprise that I have used above the example of a mathematical theorem to show how it was not about opinions but facts where doubt is simply not permitted (and if you cannot understand the proof, stay silent). For my own good, I should realise that some people are incapable of accessing to the truth or even refuse it, but I prefer to stay hopeful. The reason I won't take your answer seriously is because of refraction. Imagine saying the turbines are being refracted and what? Not even an inch of curvature blockage? Even the refraction is now magically taking into consideration the distance of the curvature to make them perfectly aligned? You told me you agree about the Discovery Channel experiment where the Helicopter was 24-feet fully blocked by the curvature just 6miles away. Now this is up to 12 miles and not even an inch of blockage because of "Magic" Stop using words you do not understand. The turbines are not aligned. You do not even know about the definition of curvature. There is nothing "magic" in the refraction of light (not the "turbines are being refracted", or how to show your ignorance in three words) passing through various media, it is called Snel's law and is known since more than four centuries. You are the one using magical thought here, stop inverting things.  The point is that I do not know whether they faked or not their experiments, but their results were believable. Looking at French's work or the above derivation, a 10% variation of the distance to the horizon would not change much their results. Now do those formulae apply accurately enough in this experience? I do not know. But I see no reason why I should defend a video even supporting my viewpoint if it appears suspicious, especially after showing that the fellows you revere were a bunch of ignorant liars fighting a straw man. Another point to consider is that you are comparing refraction above the sea and above a lake that ought to differ for reasons already explained by Young above. Perspective: As the object moves farther away, the visual angle decreases, making the object appear smaller. You can have all the degree you can boast about, but if your answer is bullshit, then I'm not gonna take it seriously. Do you actually believe that you can teach me about perspective? More displaced arrogance here. Ah... finally, you defined yourself in this projection, since you have not provided a single rational argument for your beliefs besides awful videos that proved nothing. Where did I exactly try to use my degrees (if any) in any argument in those four pages? Oh right, nowhere, I only provided proofs of my claims without even using the word degree once. Anyway, I have mostly used high school mathematics here, nothing to brag about. You do not know what aligned means. You have 0 knowledge of science, stop pretending to have any kind of expertise to discuss this topic. Interesting how you ignored my demonstration that the video you based your beliefs one was wrong and that the author deliberately lied in his video. Well I've said on my previous posts that I'm not here to argue, but to learn. If people are really interested in knowing the truth about Flat Earth then they can do the experiment themselves. No need to waste my time spoon-feeding people, nor prove myself just to win some imaginary prize. Meusnier is just basing his arguments using the Globe calculations which was taught to him at school. He's not doing the observable, repeatable experiments himself, why don't you ask him. Impressive inversion here. I was the one spoon-feeding you with my long and elaborate replies you chose to ignore, probably because they flew way above your head. So far the only experiment I saw was a guy looking at the horizon while I showed above that it was not an experimentum crucis (it would be time to look up the meaning of this term...) to show that the Earth is flat. You cannot disprove any of the arguments I have used, and again, I have no reason to keep teaching you if you prove to be someone of bad faith. The flat brains could not even provide a single chart of Flat Earth... Look what I have found, the logo of the Flat Earth Society! Sadly, the shortest path from one point to another is not a straight line on this chart, so this is not the chart we were looking for. It appears to be this chart of the Earth: "Meusnier just does what he was taught in school." As if any of those mathematics had been taught to me at school... Also implying that what you learn at school must be wrong, I see only more conspiracist mindset here. What kind of experiences are you even talking about? What kind of experienced did you do yourself? Please tell us if you plan on doing Mike Hughes similar stupid experiences that cost him his life. What a joke, I am supposed to go out in the wild and do experiments for a trivial fact that can be proven using direct images of the Earth that we have (not to mention the several other proofs I mentioned, including the original one using the invariance by isometry of the Gauss curvature). But no, the evil NASA faked it, the equally evil Roscosmos that collaborated with NASA to impose the Round Earth model, the even more evil CNSA but still cooperative with its American and Russian "friends" all plotted together to lie about the shape of the Earth. And that benefits to... no one! I gave explicit examples (300km...) showing that your model was untrue, now pick up your camera and post some of those pictures. Next what? I am going to prove that the Moon Landing actually happened by going to the moon and take pictures of the footprints? Probably not gonna reply on this thread anymore as to not escalate unnecessary drama from people getting worked up that might get this thread locked. The only drama here is that you think that the geometry of the Earth is subject to various opinions. If your belief was true, you could prove it. Just give one proof. traed said: -Shinzo said: Well I've said on my previous posts that I'm not here to argue, but to learn. If people are really interested in knowing the truth about Flat Earth then they can do the experiment themselves. No need to waste my time spoon-feeding people, nor prove myself just to win some imaginary prize. Meusnier is just basing his arguments using the Globe calculations which was taught to him at school. He's not doing the observable, repeatable experiments himself, why don't you ask him. ___ Probably not gonna reply on this thread anymore as to not escalate unnecessary drama from people getting worked up that might get this thread locked. So in other words you're unwilling to listen to someone giving you something to do that you can see for yourself ? What experiments are you claiming? How can you expect someone to do something when you wont do likewise? I dont care about meusnirs math nerd shit that's just overly conplicating something easy and simple. Math only really is needed for certain calculations. I dont care about meusnirs math nerd shit that's just overly conplicating something easy and simple. Meusnier - mathematics - nerd - shit... Please mind your words, traed. Proof that it is neither easy nor simple if Flat Earthers crawl every where in the sewers of the Internet. Math only really is needed for certain calculations. No, mathematics is by definition needed for every "calculations" (computations). |
| i just find flat earthers funny, they aren't really that big of a deal, i think we have more important things in the world happening than a bunch of middle-aged people debating correct scientific studies and unedited photos. |
| @Meusnier Point was you dont need someone to understand a mathematic expressions of something to understand the thing in itself and that throwing in that detailed info wouldn't convince someone unless they actually know how to do the math and are agreeing on the values given. |
_Mataga_ said: I don't believe the Earth is flat, nor I believe it is round. They are just unproven theories. But it is interesting to learn about them. "They are just unproven theories." They do have evidence the earth is round wtf is there not to believe? |
Ram said: I have never been in space and have never seen Earth from a spacecraft, so I cannot deny that the Earth is flat. I don't trust social media and google earth like shit, and anime lies to us about the earth being a 🔮. You have never flew on a plane.....? |
Ram said: wtf is that grammarnazi quote.. can you see the curvature of the Earth from the troposphere? I feel that you need to replace your optics. Maybe you can try to look very carefully (note: and not in a mocking tone here) outside the window next time at 11,000 m. And, excuse me, I do not wear glasses or contacts. |
More topics from this board
» 2023-2024 NBA Season Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )deg - Jun 18, 2023 |
679 |
by Hitagi__Furude
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
» What sort of education did you get?removed-user - Dec 23, 2019 |
47 |
by beazy12
»»
19 minutes ago |
|
» What are some of your favorite animals?DoisacChopper - Feb 10 |
48 |
by perfectlyquiet
»»
1 hour ago |
|
Poll: » Do you care about your native culture?Kamikaze_404 - Apr 9 |
45 |
by Bruh69XD
»»
1 hour ago |
|
Poll: » Are you mentally ill?Ejrodiew - Apr 24 |
45 |
by MasterTasuke
»»
2 hours ago |