1. Says he's been "trying to understand FE" for 10 years (lol).
2. Says there are no explanations for sunset & sunrise within FE.
3. Immediately after that he says there are explanations, but they are "full of misunderstandings and gaps" and does not elaborate.
4. Says "you can't prove anything, you can only assume things are true" (lol).
5. Says "in perhaps the leading school of thought on epistemology, "gotcha" is all there is" (lol).
6. Says globe Earth geometry works, but wants to look at the sky to "confirm" this, not the Earth itself.
7. Pretends that the celestial sphere does not exist if the Earth is flat and tries to push "FE dome" strawman instead (he said "forget about it" after being called out for it while he has it in his signature).
8. Admits he doesn't understand celestial sphere in a FE context.
9. Says Earth is a globe but is approximately locally flat (a geometrical impossibility; not to mention that the Earth isn't that big considering there is supposed to be 66 feet of curvature in just 10 miles).
10. Again insists that "FE breaks down when you try to explain sunrise/sunset, different stars in southern/northern hemisphere, etc etc etc.", when it does not.
There are some questions about sun rises and sunsets (height of the sun, angular position of the sun when it "sets")
The globe model says that the earth is a pretty big globe--which means it measures "almost flat" locally. That's not a contradiction: it's what would be predicted (and is how really big globes measured by comparatively small things on them works).
The rotation of the stars in different directions is easily explained with the globe / 'celestial sphere' around it concept. It isn't nearly so easy to explain on a flat earth (you have to have two different star-projections going in different directions or something).
Show Posts