• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Flat Earthers

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nukehasslefan said:
If you imagine it as a dartboard with a dome over it then that's fair enough....but, you need to try and find out the rest of it from my side before you can get me to argue from a flat disc world from your side.

I could give the roughest sketch ever but I don't think it would help.

How would I be expected to know?


Yep, I think so but the evidence I have may not tally with anything you have.
What are known as vacuum chambers can show a hell of a lot of what this earth is about.


I can if I don't know the truth.
Click to expand...
So basically you are arguing the world is not a globe, it is not something else that people are trying to cover up, you think you know the truth but can't tell us what it is?

@Cockney Mackem - What I said in my reply to you a couple of days ago. I thought I'd try it and engage, and if you look at every response to what I have asked in this bit of discussion and the others running, all designed to invite more questions. "Please tell us wise old sage", yet none of them actually say anything. Attack the model accepted by the sane or anyone who has ever done any sensible level of observation of the night sky or world around them but actually offer very little in return. It is a curious trait of the CT.

Look at the phrase above "but you need to try and find out the rest from my side before .....". It is literally a beg for more information, to ask the question for the third time and that 6 other posters have asked. "Please keep asking me the question again, it makes me feel like a hero".
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Nobody has come up with data to show I'm wrong.
People have come up with what they found that caters for their mindset and use it as their battering ram of truth, which they cannot prove.
Click to expand...

Many scientists have produced data to show that you're wrang.

With regard to your second paragraph, that's not how science works.

The earth has effectively been proven to be a globe just as gravitational force has been proven to be a ting.

Scientists have attempted to disprove the above but have failed.

It is therefore an accepted scientific fact.
 
cosmicchris00 said:
Many scientists have produced data to show that you're wrang.

With regard to your second paragraph, that's not how science works.

The earth has effectively been proven to be a globe just as gravitational force has been proven to be a ting.

Scientists have attempted to disprove the above but have failed.

It is therefore an accepted scientific fact.
Click to expand...
You are on to a loser there. Unless you can prove everything from first principals yourself it is invalid. On an earlier thread I started to prove the maths from first principals (I sometime do that sort of thing at home for fun/personal interest), that went nowhere. I think I'd assumed some data like the size of the earth and because I'd not measured that myself it was a lie.

There was another discussion about the 4 largest moons of Jupiter that they clearly orbit a planet and you can see it rotating "Ah but you haven't seen that yourself"...actually it is a common thing for astronomers to observe and you can track the shadow of the moons crossing Jupiter. I got a wibble response as he thought "shit, he has actually done that himself". So basically everything is invalid unless you have proven or observed it yourself, but if you have then that is invalid because of reasons.

Oh, and the trick is, anything you prove, you have to prove it in a way and a language he can understand. That is challenging. I think I'll master teaching a Walrus to play Sweet Child O'Mine on recorder before I try that one again.
 
Last edited:
DaveH said:
You are on to a loser there. Unless you can prove everything from first principals yourself it is invalid. On an earlier thread I started to prove the maths from first principals (I sometime do that sort of thing at home for fun/personal interest), that went nowhere. I think I'd assumed some data like the size of the earth and because I'd not measured that myself it was a lie.

There was another discussion about the 4 largest moons of Jupiter that they clearly orbit a planet and you can see it rotating "Ah but you haven't seen that yourself"...actually it is a common thing for astronomers to observe and you can track the shadow of the moons crossing Jupiter. I got a wibble response as he thought "shit, he has actually done that himself". So basically everything is invalid unless you have proven or observed it yourself, but if you have then that is invalid because of reasons.
Click to expand...

and he's proved nothing for himself. actually his response to even a request for such information is to tell everyone to go and find his information (which he hasn't told you)
 
payne said:
and he's proved nothing for himself. actually his response to even a request for such information is to tell everyone to go and find his information (which he hasn't told you)
Click to expand...
That is a typical trait of a CT. "Do your own research" or leave very open comments. You will often see lines that often hint at what they may be thinking, then hope the person will essentially compose the argument against for themselves when they are for something and basically end up arguing with themselves.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Likely around the inner gradient.




Reflections.
You're told the moon shows one face and an upside down face in Australia but never anywhere else on the supposed moon ball.
You're told it rotates opposite the rotation of earth and that's why you see the same face.
It supposedly rotates at 10 mph in vacuum.
If you shine a torch with a picture on it on a ceiling and move that torch over the ceiling to the other side, you see it upside down but that's just too simple for people.

It's a ball of luminous rock that just happens to rotate in perfect unison opposite the earth so people see one face and it just happens to perfectly block out the sun because the distance matches the cover for our eyes.

And so on and so on.
I'm not here to change anyone's mind. It's up to people to go with the flow or question it.






It depends on what you're asking for.
Is there a single prediction for a globe model that can be proven by us at home?
Click to expand...
I can't picture your ideas in my imagination. How about drawing us a sketch of what you think the earth looks like with some annotation. I personally would be very interested to see it, after all a picture paints a thousand words.
I'm not taking the piss by the way. Curious
 
DaveH said:
You are on to a loser there. Unless you can prove everything from first principals yourself it is invalid. On an earlier thread I started to prove the maths from first principals (I sometime do that sort of thing at home for fun/personal interest), that went nowhere. I think I'd assumed some data like the size of the earth and because I'd not measured that myself it was a lie.

There was another discussion about the 4 largest moons of Jupiter that they clearly orbit a planet and you can see it rotating "Ah but you haven't seen that yourself"...actually it is a common thing for astronomers to observe and you can track the shadow of the moons crossing Jupiter. I got a wibble response as he thought "shit, he has actually done that himself". So basically everything is invalid unless you have proven or observed it yourself, but if you have then that is invalid because of reasons.

Oh, and the trick is, anything you prove, you have to prove it in a way and a language he can understand. That is challenging. I think I'll master teaching a Walrus to play Sweet Child O'Mine on recorder before I try that one again.
Click to expand...
Pretzel logic. CTs use it all the time.
 
DaveH said:
That is a typical trait of a CT. "Do your own research" or leave very open comments. You will often see lines that often hint at what they may be thinking, then hope the person will essentially compose the argument against for themselves when they are for something and basically end up arguing with themselves.
Click to expand...

This may be the case but I do actually think some of them aren't being disingenuous on purpose. I just think they have been brainwashed into that way of reasoning.
 
payne said:
This may be the case but I do actually think some of them aren't being disingenuous on purpose. I just think they have been brainwashed into that way of reasoning.
Click to expand...
No, I think there are a few things that people do as a personality trait that are negative things but are almost subconscious. I don’t think they sit with their CT manual thinking, right I’ve been asked this the best wind up answer is “do your own research”. I think some if it is that it gets really hard to explain crazy ideas with no evidence so why spend time on a long post to someone you know is laughing at you? Also because many want the attention and that feeling that people are begging for information, they give that response once and are rewarded for it. They probably don’t think I’ll post this and it will be great, but their brain has made the connection between certain post types and rewards so the behaviour continues. When we look at it, we most likely all do that, just with different post types.

Then you have the opposite of it where if they post details it can be picked apart with ease, so ego wise it is really deflating to put something out there that they might really believe in and have it dashed by a simple bit of evidence they had not thought of.
 
DaveH said:
No, I think there are a few things that people do as a personality trait that are negative things but are almost subconscious. I don’t think they sit with their CT manual thinking, right I’ve been asked this the best wind up answer is “do your own research”. I think some if it is that it gets really hard to explain crazy ideas with no evidence so why spend time on a long post to someone you know is laughing at you? Also because many want the attention and that feeling that people are begging for information, they give that response once and are rewarded for it. They probably don’t think I’ll post this and it will be great, but their brain has made the connection between certain post types and rewards so the behaviour continues. When we look at it, we most likely all do that, just with different post types.

Then you have the opposite of it where if they post details it can be picked apart with ease, so ego wise it is really deflating to put something out there that they might really believe in and have it dashed by a simple bit of evidence they had not thought of.
Click to expand...

so what you're saying is he knows he's full of shit but just wants some attention?

to me it's so hard to believe that a person would put that much effort in if they actually don't believe what they are saying. maybe i'm too trusting.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top