Another Argument Against Flat Earth

[patrick jane]

You mean besides all the photographs and videos, including live video steams?

I'm sorry you believe they're real. I can't help you.

 

[patrick jane]

It's easy to claim that no one has ever seen a real X when you can just go and say that all examples of X are fake. BTW, no one has ever seen a real picture of Kanye West. He doesn't really exist, you know.

It's easy to believe CGI when that's all that's available to look at.

 

[Strathos]

It's easy to believe CGI when that's all that's available to look at.

Yeah, that great CGI they had back in the 1960s...

 

[pitabread]

I'm sorry you believe they're real.

Why wouldn't they be real?

 

[Freodin]

Why wouldn't they be real?

Circular reasoning. Space isn't real, therefore no one has even been to space. Therefore all images from space must be fake and all reports of people who claim to have been there must be lies. Thus there are no "real" images or reports from space, giving evidence to the claim that space isn't real.

 

[patrick jane]

Circular reasoning. Space isn't real, therefore no one has even been to space. Therefore all images from space must be fake and all reports of people who claim to have been there must be lies. Thus there are no "real" images or reports from space, giving evidence to the claim that space isn't real.

Nope, wrong again. "Space" is real and it is the firmament. Humans can't get past low earth orbit. Stop trying to ignore the FACT that NO REAL images of earth from space exist and live feeds are actually looping videos. I couldn't care any less what ANYBODY believes, so research these things yourselves instead of spending the day mocking what you don't understand.

 

[pitabread]

I couldn't care any less what ANYBODY believes, so research these things yourselves instead of spending the day mocking what you don't understand.

For a guy who claims not to care, you sure seem to care.

 

[Freodin]

Nope, wrong again. "Space" is real and it is the firmament. Humans can't get past low earth orbit. Stop trying to ignore the FACT that NO REAL images of earth from space exist and live feeds are actually looping videos. I couldn't care any less what ANYBODY believes, so research these things yourselves instead of spending the day mocking what you don't understand.

Whatever. I'm more interesting in seeing your response to my criticism of the video you posted.

 

[SpiritualBeing]

Nope, wrong again. "Space" is real and it is the firmament. Humans can't get past low earth orbit. Stop trying to ignore the FACT that NO REAL images of earth from space exist and live feeds are actually looping videos. I couldn't care any less what ANYBODY believes, so research these things yourselves instead of spending the day mocking what you don't understand.

Lol says the guy with absolutely no evidence. These flat Earthers are hilarious because they always argue their points and never have any evidence to back up their views. If there was actual evidence of a flat earth then that is what we would believe but we don’t have any evidence.

 

[lasthero]

Nope, wrong again. "Space" is real and it is the firmament. Humans can't get past low earth orbit.

What even is ‘low earth orbit’ on a flat earth? How do you even have an orbit of any kind?

 

[patrick jane]

For a guy who claims not to care, you sure seem to care.

What I mean is that I gave up on trying to convince people, I can only put information out there and discuss it with like minded folks. That's why I have my own forums. After a little over a year of steadily debating FE each day I decided that for me personally, the debate is over. I can't convince folks and I believe you can't prove a globe (or anyone else), and you believe in the globe and know that I can't prove flat earth. It's pointless to debate and try to prove anything to one side or other anymore. It's a waste of time, of which we only get so much.

 

[lasthero]

That's why I have my own forums. After a little over a year of steadily debating FE each day I decided that for me personally, the debate is over.

So why do you keep coming to the discussion forum if you don’t wish to actually discuss anything?

 

[pitabread]

It's pointless to debate and try to prove anything to one side or other anymore. It's a waste of time, of which we only get so much.

So why are you here?

 

[Freodin]

What I mean is that I gave up on trying to convince people, I can only put information out there and discuss it with like minded folks. That's why I have my own forums. After a little over a year of steadily debating FE each day I decided that for me personally, the debate is over. I can't convince folks and I believe you can't prove a globe (or anyone else), and you believe in the globe and know that I can't prove flat earth. It's pointless to debate and try to prove anything to one side or other anymore. It's a waste of time, of which we only get so much.

Does that mean you will not discuss the video you posted, even if you agreed to do so after I deliberately asked you?

 

[lasthero]

Interestingly, this "Rahu" is opaque enough to blot out the light comming from the moon, but nothing else. Not even the stars that are next to the moon during a lunar eclipse.

This is something - well, one of many things that I’ve never understood about the whole flat earth thing, and I’d love an answer, too. How can invisible object block light?

 

[Freodin]

This is something - well, one of many things that I’ve never understood about the whole flat earth thing, and I’d love an answer, too. How can invisible object block light?

I have to admit that this is a point that I, too, never understood. For all the derision and criticism that the current standard model of science gets from the Flat Earthers, it still has a lot of evidence to back it up. It works, even when the FE side claims it doesn't.
So the FE side must claim that a lot of scientific concept work completely different from the standard model.
Gravity is not based on mass, but on density, or as in the case here, on magnetism. Magnetism itself works differently. Light works differently. Matter works differently.

They cannot explain how it works differently... it just does, so that their model (whatever it may be) is preserved.

Take two of the more understandable examples from this video: refraction and gravity.
They need to use standard optical explanations to demonstrate the feasibility of their model. The startrails or the sunsets are an example of that. But in doing so, they ignore that these very experiments have nothing to do with reality. They need to place a specifically formed lense between observer and object. But in reality, such a lense does not exist. They just claim "the atmosphere does it."
It is like going to the optometrist, having your glasses prepared exactly for the needs of your eyes... and then leaving without glasses because "the atmosphere refracts light as well."
Similar with gravity. Here, they show experiments with very specific magnetic fields resulting in a certain force. So now they declare: "this form of magnetic field is responsible for gravity." But for other effects, like the movement of the sun, or the explanation of the seasons, they need a different form of magnetic field. For navigation, they need a third variant. And neither of these forms is compatible with the observations... and they can be disproven by very simple experiments.

And in the case of your question: it just does. This object blocks the light where it is needed, and is transparent in all other cases. How? Why? It just does!

In all these cases, they can just claim "It works this way.", and use some scientific sounding terms to give them credibilily. But they never can provide the theoritical or practical framework to show that their version could indeed work.

 

[patrick jane]

This is something - well, one of many things that I’ve never understood about the whole flat earth thing, and I’d love an answer, too. How can invisible object block light?

Ummm, they're dark. Solid yet can't be seen by telescope or the naked eye UNTIL reaching the sun. Why is the moon's shadow only 70 miles wide and is the moon moving in the wrong direction?

 

[lasthero]

Ummm, they're dark. Solid yet can't be seen by telescope or the naked eye UNTIL reaching the sun.

I was actually referring to the lunar eclipse. As is blatantly obvious from the post I’m responding to.

Why is the moon's shadow only 70 miles wide and is the moon moving in the wrong direction?

A) It’s not always 70 miles wide. It can actually be much smaller or much bigger. It depends on a few things.

B) I could link you to a few things that would explain the direction thing. Do you really want an explanation?

C) Are you going off the whole ‘a shadow can only be bigger or the same size as the object it comes from’ thing? Because, in light of you saying the shadow is 70 miles wide, that brings with it a few problems.

D) I thought you said you didn’t want to debate this anymore?

 

[Freodin]

Ummm, they're dark. Solid yet can't be seen by telescope or the naked eye UNTIL reaching the sun. Why is the moon's shadow only 70 miles wide and is the moon moving in the wrong direction?

The video doesn't make the claim that they are "dark"... they are said to be "transparent". So transparent that we cannot detect them. Something that transparent wouldn't cast a shadow.

Something that "cannot be seen" because it is "dark" would still block out light. In fact, if it is casting a shadow onto the moon, it would be exactly because it is blocking light.

That would mean we could detect it by things we should see, but don't.

And I am still waiting for your response to the points I made about the video you posted. You know, the one where I asked if you were willing to discuss it and you responded "sure".

 

[SpiritualBeing]

I see a new movement coming soon. Pyramid Earthers