You linked to your own post :(
Useless bot. Your programmer should be punished for such incompetence.
Literally quoted you directly.
Link to when i said it, you lying bot.
Says the “person” who can’t read or respond to things that are actually said, and instead quotes themselves :(
Next time you feel like talking to yourself, there is no need to post here. Just another reminder.
Then what is there?
Evidence; much of it scientific in origin/nature.
Just delusion and fantasy?
There sure is always plenty of that! Typically, that is principally what mythology is.
Delusion and fantasy automatically fill the void of ignorance - it’s biological/constitutional.
Earth is not flat.
Then why do you keep saying that?
Stop talking to the voices in your head - they’re not your friends.
it reads like an episode of captain planet. i have concluded that it is a hoax, perpetrated by or on the children - assuming it happened at all.
The incident in the 60’s at the westall school in australia is orders of magnitude more interesting, credible, verified, and verifiable.
Lol. All praise the almighty model.
There is no flat earth model in a scientific sense of the word model.
Your (encouraged) misunderstanding is that models are useful/used in determining reality scientifically. Models are tools built for limited and specific purpose. We don’t study them to better understand reality.
We study reality to do that, not models!
dude the stars in the southern hemisphere are different than the ones in the northern hemisphere
Sure.
because we are on a giant ball.
That doesn’t follow from the first statement. The shape of the world is not dependent upon the sky - that’s silly!
Even snipers have to take in the curvature of the earth when firing
Lol. Find a sniper, and ask them if this is true. People on the internet also say other silly things about snipers, like they have to take into account the rotational speed of the earth. People say lots of silly things on the internet.
No one is shooting at targets blindly around the curve of the earth - that’s ridiculous. How far do you think snipers shoot?
Stop smoking the CIA crack.
Agreed! You seem confused about what i am saying and why, and yet aren’t disagreeing with or addressing anything i have actually said :(
Mythology is believing that gravity and mass are not interrelated
Belief has no place in science, and is directly across purposes to it (it’s called bias). Believing that gravitation is caused by mass is a religious/mythological position, not a scientific one.
There is a very good reason that, since their invention 3+ centuries ago, no progress has been made on understanding how mass could ever cause gravitation or be consistent with observation even if it did. There is a noteworthy reason why such progress will never occur.
Mythology is believing the earth is flat despite all of the evidence against it
There is evidence for LOT’s of things, but that doesn’t make them true.
Mythology is the human default. Science is much more difficult and is the procedure intended to suppress and surpass that inherent bias.
Believing the earth is spherical, as the vast majority (perhaps even yourself?) does, is every bit as mythologically/religiously based as believing it flat.
Mythology is calling something scientism merely because you don't agree
Not really, that would be more of a rhetorical tactic and/or delusion.
Scientism is belief in / worship of a mundane technical procedure, and its practitioners and acolytes.
When science is based upon belief, it is scientifically proper to call it scientism.
Celestial bodies are oblate sphereoids, all of them
So we are required to believe and repeat. But belief and rote do not make things true, and they certainly don’t make them science. Understanding, acutely, what science is and why is critical to being able to discern science from pseudoscience/mythology/religion taught under its guise. Perhaps this is the reason scientific illiteracy is so ubiquitous - to stop that from being possible.
The earth formed, it was not made.
Once again, this is a belief. You want the earth to have formed itself without being made the exact same way a religious zealot wants it to have been made without randomly having been formed.
With such bias, if the world were made and not randomly formed you would never discover it and vice versa.
Scientism is a scourge.
I recommend checking out the documentary/catholic propaganda called “the principle” for more on this topic.
The same thing above in regards to a geocentric view is true about a stationary earth. It is philosophical bias which prevents that from being accepted or taught as a viable model - not observation or science.
The earth is round, all planets are round
So we are required to believe and repeat, but round isn’t necessarily the same as spherical.
Gravity is not a theory, it is a Law.
That’s true, and woefully misunderstood by most. The law of gravity is thousands of years old, and is simply the phenomenon of falling - “what goes up , must come down”. Laws do not, and cannot, speculate on the cause of the law - that’s what theories are for!
Gravitation is the (pseudo) theory, billed/advertised as a law, which supposedly explains the cause of the law of gravity. It is a few hundred years old, and is what most people mean (incorrectly) when they say “gravity”. It is a fundamental dogma in the creation mythology of scientism - not gravity.
Tomayto tomaughto
Additionally, if the earth was flat then the star system would look the same in North America vs. South America.
Why do you think that?
If the earth were flat, then the stars would obviously look exactly the same as they currently do...
But it doesn't - and you can't explain it.
I can explain most anything, as you can - but that doesn’t make our explanations correct. Explanations without adequate validation are merely mythology.
At what distance do you expect one to be able to see the curvature?
Always further than you can check/verify/validate friend... Coincidence?
It doesn’t really matter. All curved lenses cause barrel distortion - just not the “fun house” extreme of a fisheye.
As you can see in the screenshot above, the horizon appears concave (which i think we all - except the minority, concavers - agree is NEVER the case in reality - regardless of altitude). This is caused by barrel distortion and is due to the focal point (dead center) of the lens being pointed below the visible horizon.
Please let me know if you have any questions, or are at all interested in the greater subject.
Or perhaps trying to interpret what is being said instead of taking everything at face value
Can you give an example? I certainly interpreted what was said, and responded to what i interpreted...
I don’t know that i’m following/understanding you.
High class is believing things on tv are real?
There was a moon landing
Only on television.
No, he teleports via trees
Nothing teleports, except on tv. If you can’t keep reality straight from television/screens - turn them off and keep them off indefinitely.
is the only path to ascension
Again, i have seen no evidence that ascension in any way exists. It sounds like the vain dream of a creature that knows they are going to die, and made it up to feel better about it.
Why don't superior aliens simply conquer us
Because they are television fiction.
MAD exists on a galactic scale
What if i told you it was all (television!) fear porn propaganda and doesn’t even exist down here, let alone “beyond the sky”? I recommend the documentary dr. strangelove for more details.
which led me to doubt my dismissals of UAPs
UFO’s are real. They are built by the same and only creature in the universe that is known to build flying machines. Fictional “aliens” have been used to slander, mock, and discredit “unauthorized” people who have seen or report on such machines since their first appearances around the 40’s.
He’s (likely) technically correct.
They used front (screen) projection! Camera tricks - not cgi.
Though, as others have said - virtually no one is claiming that apollo used computers to fake their footage.
Expectation has a large influence on experience (aka placebo).
Also, people have difficulty delineating between rotation (of the sky or earth) and the spherical shape of the world. There is no reason for them to be conflated, but they almost always are. Like the world or sky couldn’t rotate if the world were some other shape than a sphere...
if you'd go towards the middle of the earth, the core, you'd have less gravity. I don't know
No one does! This is one of the obvious paradoxes of gravitation, demonstrating its falsity.
The concept of gravitation is intractable, and inherently paradoxical. It’s one of the ways you can determine it is nonsense. It is the cause of the “three body problem”, and the reason that you can’t even predict theoretically what would happen to gravitation as you approach “the core”.
The “space ladder” fiction is fun, but like all “space” writ-large, it is just silly fiction.
You don’t have to do any research, or learn anything - ever.
I think it is awfully sad to declare that “victory”, but i won’t stop you :(
Apparently they had some modified helicopter that landed on it, but it had to be done under perfect conditions, and you are asking for a disaster with repeated attempts
All true.
But ya, the fake Martian atmosphere would be impossible to fly anything.
It is impossible to fly anything anywhere that doesn’t exist. You can fly plenty of stuff on devon island ;)
Actually, this isn’t quite right.
Helicopters can (and have) landed on the top of everest, drones have also been flown there.
Space is still fake and gay though.
Show what? Evidence for the world being flat?
The most obvious evidence comes from hydrostatics (the study of water at rest). Water cannot and does not constantly curve convexly in the manner the globe model requires it to.
The belief that it does, because it must for the world to be spherical (and believed largely covered in water), is just that - an unempirical [aka unscientific] belief.
When water’s surface at rest is measured - barring negligible surface tension artifacts and under natural conditions - it is always level, flat, and horizontal. There are no exceptions, which is why it has been a law of hydrostatics for more than 3 centuries.
I feel it is important to mention/caution that having evidence for something does not make something true.