Put a flat earthier into space


That professor dave who Pancho has introduced as well.

His videos are brilliant the one where he had the video conference with flat earth dave probably the best.
Professor Dave has also produced four short videos entitled Destroying Flat Earth Without Using Science.

They are all very cleverly thought out, typically concise and well worth watching.

Here's part one:

 
Thoughts on this vid @Nukehasslefan ?
First of all, I'll deal with it as it comes.

He mentions alternate thinkers or flat Earthers have no model for the seasons. There are models but they're denied because they're deemed not to fit the global mindset.
Remember I'm dealing with this video as it comes.
I've seen a few videos where a model is offered to alternate with a spinning globe model.

He then mentions nobody has made a map or model. Again there are a few out there that seem to have done just that.

I'm not going to champion any of it as definitive and a guarantee but it is an alternate set of theories as to what may be closer to potential than the globe narrative set out.
It may not be my setup or whether I agree with it. But they're there.

It seems he spends a little bit of time trying to ridicule, which is all fine but really offers nothing.

Ok, the first point he mentions is the moon.
He goes on about seeing the same face of the moon and never changing. Well first of all it does change wherever you are on Earth in terms of looking upside down.
He then offers a flat Earth and a mindset of, if the Earth is flat would we all see the same face of the moon?
If it's a projection, yes.
Just like if you see a torch beam with a pattern moving over and around a ceiling. Same face but it would offer a different view of the face to whoever is looking from whatever area.

He tries to use a flat Earth as if it's so small and you'll see that projection from anywhere, all of the time.
He mentions two people looking at one person in the middle and asking if you can see the same face and then uses a spherical moon as an argument.
He's arguing from a narrative of the moon being a spherical ball of rock in space and trying to use this against a flat Earth.

He's offering no real argument for facts.

He asks if there's any way they can make the moon work on a flat Earth. He says no, I say, Yes, a projection. A holographic image/reflection.

He mentions seeing the same face and it is tidally locked. He uses "that's the only way it can be."
His argument is based entirely on a narrative and he's arguing from that as if he's the one that's set it all up.
Tidally locked. What does that even mean in terms of reality?

He spends far too much time attempting ridicule more than he makes any rational point, in my opinion. Of course, you and others will think entirely different and I accept that...but you did ask so I'm offering you what I think.

He's actually using ancient history to somehow compound his argument. This is used a lot as some kind of reasoning for facts and they really offer nothing factual.

My overall thought on him?
I think he's offered absolutely nothing other than smug attempts to try and discourage critical thinking outside of the box.
 
My overall thought on him?
I think he's offered absolutely nothing other than smug attempts to try and discourage critical thinking.
Sounds familiar.....
Did you watch the online debate one though, flat earthers do come up with individual justifications for things, maps, seasons etc but none of them link in fact some contradict.
Even a projection on a dome would look totally different from the side as it would from straight on though
 
Sounds familiar.....
Did you watch the online debate one though, flat earthers do come up with individual justifications for things, maps, seasons etc but none of them link in fact some contradict.
There are many alternatives to a spinning globe. Anyone who offers an alternate is labeled a flat Earther so it depends on who or what group has whatever mindset.
I disagree with a lot of alternate theories but that does not mean I'm correct in mine nor does it mean everyone is wrong in theirs.
This is why this debate still goes on wherever it's argued.

One group (majority) will claim facts against a minority group. Many will contradict each other but that means one has a different take on the setup, so that's going to be a natural outcome to any debate to be fair.
Even a projection on a dome would look totally different from the side as it would from straight on though
How do you mean?
Can you elaborate a little?
 
You can do your own research as you keep saying.
But even with a projector onto a wall if you view it at say 30 degrees the image will look much dimmer and won't look the same.
Try it.

I actually started writing something similar to this then realised it was a waste of time halfway through and deleted it. It'll be some kind of magical projector technology beyond the wit of man - I mean it knows how to project stars and weather and knows to add new items to the star view as they are discovered amongst millions of other things.
 
Why, surely all the critical thinkers will do their experiments and their evidence will prove
1 the earth is not a globe
2 what shape the earth is
Doesn't seem so in this case, does it?
There's a good reason why this debate rumbles on.
Experiments you say 🤔🤔😂
They don't like those pesky experiments, why do an experiment when a good old musing will suffice.
There are many experiments for and against and no side wants to give, so it comes back to the debate table.
 
I actually started writing something similar to this then realised it was a waste of time halfway through and deleted it. It'll be some kind of magical projector technology beyond the wit of man - I mean it knows how to project stars and weather and knows to add new items to the star view as they are discovered amongst millions of other things.
Yeah we never did get an answer as to how new observable and predictable things like the iss are added to the projection?
@Nukehasslefan ?
 

Back
Top