Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

And how are we in the very same boat?

You have no proof for your globe and I have no proof for my alternate.

Not one of your best dodges, 3/10 at best there.
Your musings presented here being pretty much entirely based on the idea that Earth is not a globe.

Absolutely.

And you're too arrogant/ignorant to just put that tired old claim to one side for long enough to see that what I've shown is not just based on what I've been told to look for, but on what I can see.

You see what you're told to see.

 

[Pancho]

Yep but then again I'm not talking about the globe when I say I don't offer facts, I'm talking about my musing of Earth.

You can see evidence of what you think is a globe based on what you were told to look for.

You debunk yourself and your dismissive views on mainstream science literally every single time you post a message on here.

You're just too dumb to realise it.

 

[DaveH]

I think this last bit is interesting.
He has said he's had his eyes opened since about 15/16 years ago. Used to believe it was a globe but then slowly realised...
Coincidentally the rise of youtube was about 15/16 years ago.
I might be wrong in my assumption, but as I've said previously on here, though relevant again, I'd expect he went down a bit of a rabbit hole. Convenient explanations, suddenly makes more sense than something that requires a bit of education to understand (we've saw earlier his lack of understanding of how education/higher education/further education etc works).
The earth, solar system, galaxies, the universe, physics, chemistry, maths all vast and complex things. Daunting at times. Hard to understand for many people.
So when a video goes something like "THEY say we're on a spinning ball rotating at 1000 mph, yet we can't feel it?! Does that seem even remotely possible to you?"
The rube who is watching it suddenly goes "exactly! That's much easier to understand, THEY are full of bullshit".
And so it goes.

Now, after that bit of waffle, I'll get to my point. I think he's at a point after having every single argument absolutely ripped to shreds in here that he just can't admit there's any doubt, or that he was wrong. He thought he was wrong about the globe until he was brainwashed. But now has internal conflict because he knows he's wrong about the flat earth.
It's embarrassing to be scammed, you feel guilt, shame and foolish.
Admitting it now would be worse than just putting his fingers in his ears and shutting his eyes and going 'la la la earth is not a globe, you have no proof la la la'.

Every single thing has to be denied or obfuscated or deflected because his whole premise is the wobbliest of jenga towers. A line of dominoes ready to go. Can't even accept a distance between two places, or right angles are 90° because if that one thing is agreed to, several other things are also correct, and if those several others are correct then so are these dozen other things.

In summary, knows he's wrong, can't back down. The behaviour of a religious zealot.

Fixating on the 1000 mph is an odd one too. I remember earlier in the thread working it out and I think it was 474 mph or something like that for us. The fact that when a disc or a ball spins, the middle bit travels slower than the outer bit is a really strange thing to get your head around. It is also why applying linear speed to angular velocity is pointless.

 

[Baloo]

You debunk yourself and your dismissive views on mainstream science literally every single time you post a message on here.

You're just too dumb to realise it.

It’s mad that you have to use “mainstream science” to just describe “science”

 

[DaveH]

And that's what you take from the story. The truth is you are reliant on just that.

I agree if you have the proof. If not then you are accepting without proof.

The proof may well be there and if someone can verify that then they have a better argument and a means to an end for shutting down a debate.

And as I've said so many times, I don't offer anything I say for my musings as factual.
That's the difference between us.

I never said it was.

That does raise the slightly more philosophical question, what is proof?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Saying 'you don't have facts or evidence either' doesn't really work when there's dozens and dozens of different examples on here or evidence.

Evidence for a globe?
If I had to go by what's offered I'd call it magical evidence because it takes magic for it all to work.

Yet for the discworld dome central projector thing there's not a single shred of evidence been put forward.

That's down to each individual to take from it what they will. Food for thought and that only. I do not tell an yone to accept anything I say. I leave it up to the person to decide if they want to think on stuff or simply just go with the accepted mainstream flow.
As simple as that.

You debunk yourself and your dismissive views on mainstream science literally every single time you post a message on here.

You're just too dumb to realise it.

In your opinion and you're welcome to it.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

You have no proof for your globe and I have no proof for my alternate.

Not true

Absolutely.

Mental! Do you think no-one else can see your replies?

"I'm not talking about the globe when I say I don't offer facts, I'm talking about my musing of Earth."

So are you saying you dont make the claim that Earth is 100% not a globe?

You see what you're told to see.

You know nothing of what I see or why.

I could have stopped at 'you know nothing.'

 

[chelt_mackem]

That does raise the slightly more philosophical question, what is proof?

I've been wondering this. At what point does a body of evidence all pointing towards the same conclusion constitute proof? It's actually a reasonable argument that none of the pieces of scientific evidence put forward conclusively prove the Earth to be a globe on their own, but when each additional piece of scientific evidence also points us that way, while simultaneously not debunking the claim of another piece of evidence, that's as close as we can get to conclusive proof.

The flat/cell Earth however, has not even one piece of evidence, let alone anything close to proof.

 

[Pancho]

In your opinion and you're welcome to it.

Nope. It's a stone cold fact.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

That does raise the slightly more philosophical question, what is proof?

Leaving someone with little to no doubt.

So are you saying you dont make the claim that Earth is 100% not a globe?

I claim a fact to say Earth is not a spinning globe we supposedly walk upon.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Evidence for a globe?
If I had to go by what's offered I'd call it magical evidence because it takes magic for it all to work.

It really doesn't. Far less magical than naturally occurring carbon arc projectors that can read our collective minds and act accordingly.

Leaving someone with little to no doubt.

But what about when someone comes along and says you only have no doubt because you're told to have no doubt? What then?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Nope. It's a stone cold fact.

Your fact and you're welcome to it. Not mine.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I claim a fact to say Earth is not a spinning globe we supposedly walk upon.

only because you're told to think that.

 

[Pink Panther]

Your fact and you're welcome to it. Not mine.

That's definitely how facts work.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It really doesn't. Far less magical than naturally occurring carbon arc projectors that can read our collective minds and act accordingly.

Nothing to do with reading anyone's mind so I don't know where you got this from...but anyway.

But what about when someone comes along and says you only have no doubt because you're told to have no doubt? What then?

Then they're entitled to say it and it becomes a debate.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Nothing to do with reading anyone's mind so I don't know where you got this from...but anyway.

If I chose to secretly build and launch a satellite without telling anyone.... it would know

Then they're entitled to say it and it becomes a debate.

So then proof is not proof after all? Just because someone said so?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So then proof is not proof after all? Just because someone said so?

Someone saying so offers a story, not proof.

 

[payne]

I've been wondering this. At what point does a body of evidence all pointing towards the same conclusion constitute proof? It's actually a reasonable argument that none of the pieces of scientific evidence put forward conclusively prove the Earth to be a globe on their own, but when each additional piece of scientific evidence also points us that way, while simultaneously not debunking the claim of another piece of evidence, that's as close as we can get to conclusive proof.

The flat/cell Earth however, has not even one piece of evidence, let alone anything close to proof.

I think proof is just something he personally agrees with.

Leaving someone with little to no doubt.

I claim a fact to say Earth is not a spinning globe we supposedly walk upon.

walk/sail upon you mean

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Someone saying so offers a story, not proof.

But that's what started this little bit... what is proof? Your answer only lasted as long as it took for me to reply and now it means nothing?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

But that's what started this little bit... what is proof? Your answer only lasted as long as it took for me to reply and now it means nothing?

If you tell me you can jump 2 feet or more from the floor and I ask you to prove it but you refuse, then you offered me a story and you expect or hope I accept it based on what you say.

If however you do it and it measures two feet or more then I'll accept that as your proof.
Simple enough.