Apologies for the long post and the odd formatting but I have either no internet or a few seconds at a time and have compiled my reply offline.
Re the motion of the Sun, Moon and the planets, in particular Venus
“A predictable manner for which you've been story told.”
No a predictable manner I can see with my own eyes.
See what?
You see points of moving lights. You do not ever think it's you moving and the lights are stationary but you accept the story that Earth is moving anyway.
“If a plane flies east to west is it stationary in the air while you go west to east on a conveyor belt?”
If you walk the length of a train is the train stationary beneath you?
No, unless you mean the floor inside of the train.
I think you're arguing from a point of you being on a spinning Earth with a perfect spinning atmosphere in unison with that solid Earth and this is your inner train, right?
Not the same argument, is it?
Outside of the train is atmosphere.
Outside of your global Earth train is a supposed vacuum.
The argument does not marry up.
“You're tracking something that you're told is a planet.
All I'm saying is, your evidence for it is based entirely on that story fitting what you think is a visual description.”
Again, no, I can see it with my own eyes, as could you if you were even half as open minded and questioning as you claim to be. I can see it and decide for myself if it matches the science. It does. Not stories, observable facts. You can see Venus is a globe, you can see it alternately pass in front of and then behind the Sun. Nothing in your cell comes close to explaining this does it?
Of course you can see points of light with your own eyes but you do not know what they are. You're told what they are.
“All of it makes sense to you because that's the set narrative.
It all made sense to me at one time because I didn't question any of it. I just accepted it for what was told.”
No, it makes sense because it’s fact, observable, testable, repeatable and proven fact.
None of it is proven as a fact.
If you travel from East to West in the Northern hemisphere Polaris will always be there to your right.
Just as it would if you did it on a circle.
If you head South, Polaris will gradually appear lower in the sky.
Just as it would if you went south on a circle, because you're going away from it and changing angle over distance.
Once it dips below the horizon, you’re in the Southern hemisphere. Prove me wrong.
On a circle your compass would point south if you were walking away from the centre. No need for a spheroid.
“Water vapour is not exactly the same as liquid water”
“Yes it is, only less dense”
So not exactly the same then.
It depends on what you want to view it as.
It's like saying melted toffee is not the same as a bar of toffee when cooled but essentially it's the same thing only less dense.
“What does act strongly against it is dense atmosphere squeezing it up due to the water being expanded and become less dense than the atmosphere it was layered in before applied energy to it expanded it from that dense mass. No gravity needed and this defies the so called gravity explanation.”
And exactly how does atmosphere of any given density know which way is up and down?
Because atmosphere is layered. It's stacked layers of matter.
The denser matter is at sea level and each layer is under less pressure as it stacks. A push on push is happening. Below is resisting above and above is resisting above that layer and using the layer below as a resistance to it's own push into above as a resistance.
It means matter is broken down as it loses dense mass through being pushed up.
Any denser matter pushed into any of those layers results in compressing that atmospheric matter away from the object by the objects own dense mass, minus porosity which becomes part of it.
It results in that pressure pushing back onto the object. Squeezing it back down against a resistance to it, whetehr that be a solid foundation or a liquid, as in water....or maybe just atmospheric resistance if the object is raised then dropped.
Without gravity these are meaningless and this defies your so-called alternative explanation.
Gravity is fictional. It has no real purpose in life, other than to prop up fictional space and Earth supposedly spinning within this fictional space.
“I do deliberately choose that standpoint because it is what it is. It is contradictory.”
Nothing makes sense until you learn.
And this is what I'm doing.
By all means refuse to learn, kid yourself that you’re fighting the good fight against all who would lie and mislead you, but remember your musings are based on a scam dreamed up by a snake-oil seller who left school at 9 years old, who has been consistently and repeatedly proven to be wrong for about 200 years.
Nope. They're based on me going through the very same schooling by the schooled who were schooled by the schooled all the way up to the actual snakeoil salespeople.
“I'm refuting it for good reason. Nobody is proving me wrong.
Simple coming out with " your'e wrong" en masse is not proof that you are correct.
My musings do not need to be brought into anything. I don't pass them off as factual. You are passing your stuff off as factual without knowing the facts and purely based on acceptance of explained storylines.”
Firstly, your musings are brought into it because that’s what we’re debating here.
As for not passing them off as factual, the so-called nonsense of the global model is very much presented by you as fact no matter how many times you remember to add “in my opinion of course.”
The global nonsense is just that. It is fact provable by one simple experiment which I've been over so many times and will stand by.
There's plenty more but they're all argued against and catered for with magical forces and mysteries, which is fine but does not offer a spinning globe any reality.
You’re not just being told “you’re wrong” en masse, several people have given you reasons why you’re wrong.
Of course they have. Reasons that I already know about which are unprovable.
You COULD go out and check them for yourself but you choose not to.
You cann go out and check the basics of actual reality but you choose not to.
Don’t pretend that’s the same as questioning because it’s nothing more than denial.
I could offer the exact same to you which gets us nowhere.
“I believe there's loads of evidence. The issue is in people willing to see it for that, instead of brushing it aside in favour of magical mysteries. That's the key.”
You’ve come out with some whoppers but this is on another level.
Whoppers to you. Not to me. I could be wrong but I have my own take.
That right there is the entire thread compressed into two lines.
In your mind.
Never has so much been brushed aside by so few in favour of so little.
Never has so much been adhered to for so little proof.
