Flat Earth

[sirazimuth]

There's something about an obsessive flat earth troller  and pious godswill evolution denying preacher
debating the finer points of nonsense I find amusing...but I can't quite put my finger on it....

[1713560217]

1713560217

[1713560217]

1713560217

[1713560217]

1713560217

[1713560217]

1713560217

[1713560217]

1713560217

[joerogers8]

There's something about an obsessive flat earth troller  and pious godswill evolution denying preacher
debating the finer points of nonsense I find amusing...but I can't quite put my finger on it....

Funny as hell you just proved nobatman's entire point. 

"He can no longer argue with any facts and has to go down the path of intellectual dishonesty and start playing games."

[Champion Coin]

Why is flat earth a thing all of a sudden now?

[BADecker]

When you add more sticks a planar model fails without accounting for refraction, when you account for refraction the globe model fails and a planar model becomes consistent with observation.

Look at BADecker's intellectually dishonest and blatantly false statement. He tries to agree with with refraction being needed then claims it doesn't falsify the globe. He can't claim it's not needed or the selenelion falsifies the globe.

See how using two arguments forces him to start using gaslighting, semantics, goal post shifting, circular logic and the like? He can no longer argue with any facts and has to go down the path of intellectual dishonesty and start playing games. This is the point I just tell him to go rope himself, as he's playing a part in a massive conspiracy against me and almost everybody else.

Silly notbatman. He knows that if you add more sticks outside of the ones already there, they disappear over the horizon. And if they go far enough over the horizon, they disappear into the dark side of the earth globe. So he tries to distract with the idea of atmospheric aberration.



P.S.  Do you think he calls himself notbatman, because he is really a woman?     

[notbatman]

^^^ He tries to confuse the issue by trolling then referring to refraction as an aberration but, he knows trying to deny it just tightens the noose as the eclipse requires extreme refraction to lift it up above the horizon on a globe. With no other course of action he continues to gaslight with trolling.

[Vod]

Why is flat earth a thing all of a sudden now?

Apparently, common sense hurts some people.  :/

[notbatman]

^^^ gaslighting, trolling.

[—]

Loving it.....
Sun distances at Passover is at Equator 6400 km, 6900 km to Tropic Cancer, Capricorn, 5800 km at 45°
 You say what?


Have a look for yourself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN8yhUzqLCA

come debunk

For entertainment and a good laugh




more hilarious laughter, the ten highest, recurring highest tides location (3 in English Channel)




another fact



(currently traveling and, and....and limited time, power........)

[BADecker]

^^^ He tries to confuse the issue by trolling then referring to refraction as an aberration but, he knows trying to deny it just tightens the noose as the eclipse requires extreme refraction to lift it up above the horizon on a globe. With no other course of action he continues to gaslight with trolling.

He couldn't explain it before, so when you combine two of his ideas, they drop his whole flat earth idea right out from under him.

I don't blame him. Everybody needs a religion.

[notbatman]

^^^ Gaslighting.

Perhaps, you're just slow... so I've condensed my post so the two arguments that together prove the earth is flat are clearly outlined:

...
      Flat Earth Argument #1 - Eratosthenes and his sticks and shadows experiment works the same on a flat Earth with a close Sun.

      Flat Earth Argument #2 - A selenelion eclipse with the Sun and Moon both visible in the sky above the viewer is evidence the Earth is flat and motionless.
...
...
      Globe Rebuttal #1 - We just add more sticks and the measurements are consistent with a globe but don't work on any flat Earth model.  

      Globe Rebuttal #2 - During a selenelion or horizontal lunar eclipse, atmospheric refraction causes the Moon to rise up from below the curvature of the Earth and become visible above the horizon.  
...

... when adding more sticks to Eratosthenes experiment on a plane you must also calculate for atmospheric refraction. ...
...

Both arguments need to be answered by the globalist, when he answers using the programed response defined by authority (he's unable to think for himself) his answers conflict in order maintain that Earth is a globe in both cases. He can't claim refraction isn't a factor and answer the second argument. He also can't claim refraction allows for both the Sun and Moon in sky together during an eclipse and answer the first argument. This simple exploit of the programed response given by the globalist proves we are on a plane; the globalist provides everything your proof needs.

[BADecker]

^^^ Gaslighting.

Perhaps, you're just slow... so I've condensed my post so the two arguments that together prove the earth is flat are clearly outlined:

...
      Flat Earth Argument #1 - Eratosthenes and his sticks and shadows experiment works the same on a flat Earth with a close Sun.

      Flat Earth Argument #2 - A selenelion eclipse with the Sun and Moon both visible in the sky above the viewer is evidence the Earth is flat and motionless.
...
...
      Globe Rebuttal #1 - We just add more sticks and the measurements are consistent with a globe but don't work on any flat Earth model.  

      Globe Rebuttal #2 - During a selenelion or horizontal lunar eclipse, atmospheric refraction causes the Moon to rise up from below the curvature of the Earth and become visible above the horizon.  
...

... when adding more sticks to Eratosthenes experiment on a plane you must also calculate for atmospheric refraction. ...
...

Both arguments need to be answered by the globalist, when he answers using the programed response defined by authority (he's unable to think for himself) his answers conflict in order maintain that Earth is a globe in both cases. He can't claim refraction isn't a factor and answer the second argument. He also can't claim refraction allows for both the Sun and Moon in sky together during an eclipse and answer the first argument. This simple exploit of the programed response given by the globalist proves we are on a plane; the globalist provides everything your proof needs.

#1. No it doesn't. At 12,000 miles distance from the earth point where the sun is directly overhead, you can still see the poles on a FE... even though their shadows are long, and it might take a powerful telescope to see them. On a GE, the poles are on the other side of the globe. No matter how high the poles are (as many as hundreds of miles), their shadow is non-existent, because the poles are in the shadow of the earth. And if the poles are only a few feet high on a GE, their shadows are already gone by the time they are only 6,000 miles from the pole directly under the sun.

#2. This has nothing to do with proving the earth flat. Remember that a selenelion eclipse on a globe takes advantage of an atmosphere as much as thousands of miles thick. How can this be, when the practical atmosphere is only 20 miles thick, or so, straight up? Because you are looking horizontally through several thousand miles of atmosphere, rather than straight up through only 20 miles. Thousands of miles of gradually thinning atmosphere are easily enough for the required refraction.

#3G. The size of the moon, comparing its horizon size with its overhead size... the moon is slightly smaller on the horizon, due to its further distance from the earth than when it is overhead, and partially due to atmospheric refraction. Larger moon size at the horizon is an illusion.

#3F. The fact that, when the moon is on the horizon on FE, its distance relationship FE-horizon compared with GE-horizon is a lot less. Why? Because FE earth-to-moon is a lot less than GE earth-to-moon. In fact, in FE the top of the dome, if it is a hemisphere, would only be around 18,000 miles. The FE moon, being a lot smaller than the GE moon, would look a lot smaller on the FE horizon because of this relationship change. Since it doesn't... no FE.

[BADecker]

So, now we have 3 that the FE people can't answer.

1. Ship going over the horizon at a fairly near distance when the eye is only a couple inches over the horizon.

2. The Eratosthenes sticks disappear into the dark at a maximum of 6,000 miles from the stick under the sun.

3. The sun and moon should be a whole lot different in size than they are comparing directly overhead to, say, 10,000 miles distance... if they are FE smaller and closer.

No FE.

[notbatman]

The distance to the Sun can be measured with a sextant and it's about 3,000 miles. BADecker has no response but bullshit, observations of Earth at 12,000 miles, adds an irrelevant point about perspective, fuck off. He can't deal with the fact refraction proves the Earth is flat when more sticks are added to Eratosthenes experiment. He can't deny refraction or the selenelion proves the Earth is flat.

The Earth is provably flat and motionless. The globalists need to swing from a rope.






When performing Eratosthenes experiment using three or more sticks (or wells), the stick directly under the Sun has no refraction due to its position, for all other sticks atmospheric refraction must be accounted for. Observation of the shadows is consistent with a plane, falsifies the globe and proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is flat and motionless.

[joerogers8]

The distance to the Sun can be measured with a sextant and it's about 3,000 miles. BADecker has no response but bullshit, observations of Earth at 12,000 miles, adds an irrelevant point about perspective, fuck off. He can't deal with the fact refraction proves the Earth is flat when more sticks are added to Eratosthenes experiment. He can't deny refraction or the selenelion proves the Earth is flat.

The Earth is provably flat and motionless. The globalists need to swing from a rope.






When performing Eratosthenes experiment using three or more sticks (or wells), the stick directly under the Sun has no refraction due to its position, for all other sticks atmospheric refraction must be accounted for. Observation of the shadows is consistent with a plane, falsifies the globe and proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is flat and motionless.

Oh yeah.  Well you're stupid.  You should believe what others are telling you and stop putting up these stupid things called proof.  What difference does it make anyway.  There are plenty of smart .gov officials and scientists to tell us what to think.  They would not lie to us.  

-sorry nobatman I'm auditioning to be brought back into the globe circle.  How am I doing boys.  I think I hit most of the major comebacks.

FEB is awesome by the way
+1 for deciphering that 12,000 mile distance bullshit baddicker was saying.  I read it a few times and then just gave up.

[notbatman]

The distance to the Sun can be measured with a sextant and it's about 3,000 miles. BADecker has no response but bullshit, observations of Earth at 12,000 miles, adds an irrelevant point about perspective, fuck off. He can't deal with the fact refraction proves the Earth is flat when more sticks are added to Eratosthenes experiment. He can't deny refraction or the selenelion proves the Earth is flat.

The Earth is provably flat and motionless. The globalists need to swing from a rope.






When performing Eratosthenes experiment using three or more sticks (or wells), the stick directly under the Sun has no refraction due to its position, for all other sticks atmospheric refraction must be accounted for. Observation of the shadows is consistent with a plane, falsifies the globe and proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is flat and motionless.

Oh yeah.  Well you're stupid.  You should believe what others are telling you and stop putting up these stupid things called proof.  What difference does it make anyway.  There are plenty of smart .gov officials and scientists to tell us what to think.  They would not lie to us.  

-sorry nobatman I'm auditioning to be brought back into the globe circle.  How am I doing boys.  I think I hit most of the major comebacks.

FEB is awesome by the way
+1 for deciphering that 12,000 mile distance bullshit baddicker was saying.  I read it a few times and then just gave up.

Of all the proofs I've got this seems to be the best as all you have to do is, prove that atmospheric refraction applies to Eratosthenes experiments with additional sticks (or wells). This is the #1 goto proof the globalist have and leaves refraction as the only thing left to do; the difference in angle the globalist claims as proof is consistent with refraction. Once refraction is accounted for then the experiment agrees with a small moving Sun over a flat and motionless plane and, the globalist no longer has an argument as his proof has been co-opted.

Refraction can be established by co-opting the globalist's explanation of a selenelion eclipse.

[BADecker]

The distance to the Sun can be measured with a sextant and it's about 3,000 miles. BADecker has no response but bullshit, observations of Earth at 12,000 miles, adds an irrelevant point about perspective, fuck off. He can't deal with the fact refraction proves the Earth is flat when more sticks are added to Eratosthenes experiment. He can't deny refraction or the selenelion proves the Earth is flat.

The Earth is provably flat and motionless. The globalists need to swing from a rope.

Thank you for showing where you mess up, right here.

Let's say that you are standing right under the sun on a FE. And you measure its distance to be 3,000 miles away. Then you call your buddy by phone or radio. He is looking at the same sun on the same FE, but he is 3,000 miles away from you. This means he is about 4,250 miles away from the sun (triangulation), rather than the 3,000 miles away that you are. He's something like 1,250 miles further away from the sun than you are.

The sun should look smaller to your buddy, because he is so much farther away. But it doesn't. It looks the same size. This shows you that it isn't a FE that we are on.

GE standard distance from the sun is something like 93,000,000 miles away. If the sun is directly overhead on GE, and your buddy is 3,000 miles away from you, he's going to be a little further away from the sun than you, because of the curvature of the earth. But his distance won't be enough greater that it will make a difference. So, the sun will be a tiny bit smaller for him. But he will not be able to notice it because of the great 93,000,000 mile distance of the sun from both of you.

Now, you might want to say that some silly perspective thing makes the sun look the same size on FE. But this will throw off all kinds of other perspective things that you say.

You really need to get your FE science down all the way, and stop mixing all kinds of standard science with it. If you don't, you might as well go into magic to make your stuff work. Because that is all you are doing even though you may not know it.

If it isn't already, FE is becoming a cult for you.

[Jandrei1]

Ferdinand Magellan's voyage proves that the earth is round.

[Vod]

Ferdinand Magellan's voyage proves that the earth is round.

"Proof" is a waste of time on these people.  They can't understand it. 

[SaltySpitoon]

Why is flat earth a thing all of a sudden now?

Because its fun to be a contrarian. I've never been able to understand why anyone would think the earth is flat. Its not like its hard to witness numerous low tech experiments to prove to yourself that its a sphere, however it is fun to play with pseudo science, so rather than get frustrated at perceived stupidity, I say let them have at it and maybe they'll accidentally stumble across something useful while playing with the math. You find an example where a model holds true with ridiculous parameters at one point and ignore the rest of the set of data to prove what you want. That's how you prove that the earth is flat. At the same time, in playing with those ridiculous parameters that no one has before because there is no reason to, you can find something actually useful (maybe?)

[joerogers8]

Ferdinand Magellan's voyage proves that the earth is round.

This is wrong.

You can circumnavigate the flat earth just as easily as the globe.  

Put a quarter on the floor.  Walk around it.  You just circumnavigated the quarter on a flat plane.