Thank you for proving the point of this thread.
Sadly you have missed / been unable to respond to my points, and out of desperation resort back to predictable script :(
Flat Earthers are just so predictable
When you assume...
You aren't talking to a flat earther.
Show those charts
You can't find charts of sunrise and sunset times? Where have you looked?
The formula requires Earth to be round
This is your mistake. It is akin to saying the geocentric formula(s) require the earth to be the center of the universe. I hope you are beginning to understand my analogy.
It's a fact.
Many facts are wrong/untrue. Facts are merely what your authority tells you are facts. You believe it is a fact (i.e. true).
However, your "proof" is circular.
Premise : The world is a sphere because equations which include its sphericity work to predict sunrise/sunset times.
Conclusion : The equations work because the world is spherical.
The premise IS the conclusion, and does not follow from it. It's circular logic.
If the Earth is flat, why does the formula work?
Because we built it to! It coincides with the actual measurements that we made of the sunset/sunrise times because it was built from / confirmed against such charts.
Our conception of the world and its workings can be (and most often are) entirely wrong and still be useful.
Why can you not produce these "charts" that you claim exist
I won't because i don't do people's homework for them - it makes them worse students/researchers. If you earnestly search for such charts and fail to find them, then we can talk about what you tried and i will do my utmost to help you. Finding charts of the sunrise and sunset times should not be difficult.
Charts do not require the world to be any particular shape, just like the times for sunrise and sunset within them. They simply are.
Then show how you determine sunrise and sunset without a formula that requires a round Earth
You're not listening. They're called charts. Look them up, or don't.
You won't because you can't
You are just not understanding me. You believe that because such formula exist and are useful that proves that the world must be spherical. This is exactly as wrong, and for the exact same reasons, as believing that because the geocentric model (and its equations) exists and is useful that the earth is proven to be the center of the universe. Hopefully you will understand my analogy a little better now.
Repeating your subjective standards
The community rules are in the sidebar. It's rule #1. It's objective enough for our purposes, and has nothing to do with me.
You're not even aware of how you've shifted your argument?
There is no argument. You made a shitpost, i called you out. No argument whatsoever.
I am only curious what argument you think there was initially and what you believe it changed into. Can you really not describe it at all? Doesn't that worry you?
I'm not sure what the truth is, but i was fascinated by the documentary "3 Billion and counting" on the subject.
It has been shown to possibly cure/treat certain types of cancer, and the guy who made the video actually ate a decent quantity of it in the documentary.
I highly recommend it.
It's just an analogy to help you understand why your position is silly. Sadly it didn't help :(
Fundamentally, our belief of the world and its workings has no bearing on that world - including when there is ostensible "predictive" "power".
The reason we can know when the sun will rise and set is because it has happened before, and is reliably periodic. Not because the world is any particular shape.
The formula to calculate sunrise and sunset in a location requires the earth to be round.
So you believe. But the earth does it what it does, and the sun rises at the time it does irrespective of that belief.
The movement of the lights in the sky are cyclical/periodic. All you need are charts.
If it isn't round, how can the formula be accurate?
Lol, because the formula are built from (and in accordance with) the real observations. You are conflating useful with correct. They are not the same, and this is a common (i would say. encouraged) mistake.
Who did it and what formula did they use?
Lol, you don't need a formula. You need a chart. Most (if not all) of the ancient civilizations had such charts (many built them into their buildings - archeoastronomy).
One of the earliest known examples of a "formula" based mechanism was the antikythera device.
I'm looking forward to hearing your excuse for not answering this question.
Always prepare to be disappointed. We all know what happens when you assume....
With a round Earth, we are able to perfectly predict the time of sunrise, sunset and the movement of the stars and planets.
We've been able to do that for millennia (at least). It has nothing to do with the believed shape of the earth. It has to do with watching the lights in the sky, recording them, and noticing the cyclical pattern. The shape of the world isn't involved, as much as you may want it to be.
Many people are encouraged to have your misunderstanding.
Consider the geocentric model. It exists, and does all the things you are lauding above. Does that prove the world is the center of the universe?
Of course not, and for the exact same reasons.
Predicting the motion of the lights in the sky comes from charts and the fact that the patterns are cyclical/repeating. It doesn't in any way depend on the conception of the shape of the world.
This is incorrect, but popularly advertised.
Eratosthenes never figured anything out regarding the shape of the world. He was taught from childhood, as we all are today, that the earth is spherical and never doubted this teaching nor sought to validate/prove it.
In fact, his procedure and calculation require that the earth be spherical (and many further unvalidated assumptions) in order to be meaningful at all.
He calculated the size of the world assuming it was spherical (with many other assumptions besides).
setting yourself up as a moral gatekeeper
Morality has little, if anything to do with it. I want conspiracies to be a place to discuss conspiracies and related topics. You want it to be a place with vapid shitposting.
And notice how your argument has changed as well
What "argument"? Nothing has changed at all. You posted junk that wasn't appropriate on the community and i called you out - end. There isn't any argument at all.
Out of curiosity, what "argument" do you think there was initially, and when did it change?
Oh, now you're just being silly
Is it silly to want conspiracies to be for conspiracies and discussions thereof (even if you don't agree with them yourself - which is fine)?
Is it silly to not want shitposting like yours to waste peoples time, troll, and generally bring the quality of the community down?
If so, then yes - i am "silly".
Making fun of flat earthers is always legit
Not according to rule #1 here, no. However i suspect clemaneuverers probably agrees with you.
It's always easy (and embarrassing) to "make fun", but it is much harder to actually understand instead.
It was put here to annoy people
I know, which is why it doesn't belong on conspiracies and is merely shitposting.
Making fun of / harassing people that you don't agree with and/or put stock in their conspiratorial views is the opposite of the purpose of this community. Making fun of the (faux, in your view) conspiracy itself arguably is - but you didn't do that at all.
making multiple reports that are not justified, making multiple spurious reports
These are the same, right?
reporting comments for behavior that you yourself have just engaged in
Does chronology matter here? "They started it" playground rules?
Or do you forfeit your right to report a user for breaking rules if you yourself violate the rules in a subsequent response?
making multiple targeted reports of a user you are in an argument with regardless of the content of the comments.
So making only one report would be appropriate in that case? I recognize this makes more work for you mods, but shouldn't you expect a report each time a user violates the rules - regardless of how many times they do it within a particular comment thread?
Also, argument is a bit tricky/murky/subjective - right? It's ok to break the rules if you are in an argument?
I'm working on a new rules page for this forum which will explain each rule in a bit more detail - I don't want to clutter up the sidebar too much with explication.
Thanks! I think ideally the sidebar stuff could be replaced by a single link to it and message that all must read and abide by the rules.
I ask the above for general clarification which will hopefully go into that rules page. I don't report users in any case, and instead remind them that those rules make the community a better place and help them to more effectively communicate/contribute. Perhaps i should just report them instead? Knowing what mods would prefer and why would be helpful.
Ah, so now you get it
Yes, but do you? I "got it" from the initial post, but you still seem to be missing it. This doesn't belong on this forum, unless it is conspiracy related. Because you don't think it is a conspiracy, it is shitposting which makes the board worse.
the same way people say Pizzagate (or pick your poison) is not a conspiracy.
Discussing why this, in your opinion/view, is NOT a conspiracy would also be appropriate to the board. What you posted wasn't and isn't, which is the point.
I did already, it's in the title, you just missed it
I think you may have missed it. According to you, there isn't any conspiracy in your post and therefore it isn't appropriate to post here.
Now, assuming you wanted to discuss the view that others have about this event being fake/fraudulent and part of a larger conspiracy - in that case i would consider this post legitimate/appropriate.
It was mean of me to make, and I apologize.
I am called far worse than "lacking the capacity to recognize subtlety/poetry" quite regularly. Apology accepted, and please think nothing of it.
directly related to this board
Can you describe in what way you think this post is related to this board?
It's not for poetry...
I did. Where is the conspiracy?
You wanting to annoy people isn't a conspiracy.
And you think this is (/related to) a conspiracy?
Lol. It really is sad to see you continue to respond this way. It is also against the policies on this community.
Are you really so incapable of responding to the content of my comments that you can't do anything but hurl insult like a pitiful tantruming child?
I'm starting to hope that you are a bot, for your sake :(
How long would that ruler have to be to measure the curvature of an ocean?
Most of the oceans don't freeze over, but the ones which do freeze (a few miles or so of them anyway - enough to measure such curvature) you could do with the same standard ruler the crazy (and obsessively committed, no doubt) person in my first hypothetical used.
Are you implying that it's impossible to measure the curvature of the Earth unless the surface is perfectly smooth?
Again, i am confused by your interpretation of the things i've said. What specifically did i say to make you think i implied that? Please provide specific quotes, as it will help me to understand the disconnect and possibly communicate with you more effectively in the future!
I was saying that measuring the surface of water to determine its curvature (or distinct lack thereof as the case may be) is much easier when the water is frozen solid - and mostly smooth. Accounting for and navigating topology is obviously not impossible - but it is much more difficult.
Such as?
A surveyor's/trundle wheel for one! Lol.
You claimed that the link I provided did not provide a method to measure the curvature of the Earth
It's not really a claim, but what i said was that the link you provided was not an example of directly measuring the surface of water and measuring it to curve convexly the way the globe model describes. There is no measurement of any curvature OR the surface of water in the link you provided, This isn't so much "a claim" as it is plainly obvious and without any possible refutation.
Let me make it very simple
Agreed! This is what i mean by "taking more bites before you are done chewing the one in your mouth". We are still only discussing one claim - my first one. We can get to the rest once we are done with it.
You responded to that claim that there was a procedure to measure the curvature of the surface of water (specifically the curvature described by the globe model) and then provided a link to a procedure which didn't in any way do that. Pretty simple right?
If there is a method to measure the curvature of the earth, it also measures the curvature of the oceans covering the earth.
This seems a bit like a tautology. The oceans are a part of that earth, so if you had a method to measure all of the earth - you would necessarily have to measure the oceans in order to do it... We are currently struggling to measure (even purely in imagination/hypothetically!) even a small to moderately sized lake (frozen or otherwise) - so measuring the entirety of the world instead is obviously quite out of the question.
Do you understand what I am saying?
Yes! And i pose the same question to you - forever and always while discussing. Please ask me questions if you do not understand, or disagree! The more specific the question, the more likely i can provide the specific answer you are looking for (assuming i have it to give, of course!)
There are many approaches, but the most practical / easiest to execute are done when the water is frozen in place.
You could use a ruler in that case, if you were crazy and/or wanted to. There are, of course many more efficient ways than that.
Just because you couldn't be bothered to do one google search for sunset/sunrise charts - they don't exist and/or are "made up"? Some research ethic you have :(
Try harder, if you can.