The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: supaluminus on January 30, 2018, 04:30:43 PM
-
Hey, guys. How come this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9ABlS2U-Mk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKVHrgMMX6g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGvJqzUgWDI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8qRyGZUuRA
Expanded:
I don't want to assume anything, because everybody has small variations in which flat earth model they subscribe to, but let's start by assuming a flat disc, for simplicity.
If we then assume that the sun and moon are hovering over the flat earth disc, rotating around it like the hands on a clock, then we should be able to make certain predictions about how they would appear to move... at least, that sounds reasonable to me.
Therefore, if we have some idea what the sun and moon do as they rotate around and around above the flat earth... why then do we observe the phenomenon described here?
Before anyone gets too defensive (sorry, that's what happens, in my experience), I'm just asking. I'm willing to hear anyone's explanation, as long as that person is willing to be plied with reasonable objections. If I have reason to doubt your explanation, I'm going to raise a follow-up question, so please don't answer if you can't accept that possibility and be civilized about it.
Also, if you have any problems with the assumptions I proposed, let me know, so that we can agree on a presumed model, and work from there.
Regards,
supe
-
Walking home one evening, looking up at the setting sun, I realised that the sun presents a round face to me all day everyday everywhere. The sun presents a round face to everyone everywhere. How does this work with a spotlight sun? Showing a circle in all directions is characteristic of a sphere.
More, at sunset, the sun even looks larger than it does when up in the sky. That doesn't help the sun-moving-away perspective lines.
-
This is, in my opinion, one of the strongest arguments against the FE hypothesis! I’ve brought this up before on this forum and many other places, and the usual answer is "perspective", which is a non-answer. Dismissing evidence like this with a word the definition of which you don’t actually understand, or saying "we don’t know" is a foolish cop-out.
Cmon flerfers, for a millionth time, try and give us a clear explanation (preferably with a drawing please) of how we can possibly see only the top half of the sun (or really top half of anything, like ships, the Chicago skyline from Michigan, etc.) with your FE "model"! And please don’t repost one of those silly perspective videos again, I beg you...
-
Wow. That really is a load of gibberish...
I think the answer to the OP, or the FE answer, is some kind of magical atmospheric magnification which means the sun doesn't appear to sink.
But then you have the problem of a sun 3000 miles above the earth appearing to intersect the horizon.
Tom can shout "perspective" all he likes, for the long shadows you see at sunset and for clouds to be lit from below the sun must be physically on the horizon.
-
Almost 200 views and a full week. Narry a peep from Team Flat.
Guys, please. Don't just ignore inconvenient data. Address it head on. Give me SOMETHING to respond to, SOME kind of rationale, so I can hopefully show you... why that rationale falls short.
-
And, just because I found a much better example, I'mma add this here and in the OP:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9ABlS2U-Mk
-
Almost 200 views and a full week. Narry a peep from Team Flat.
Personally, I'm objecting to your approach of "here are my terms of conversation, and they are supremely reasonable". Therefore, per your own advice, I will not be responding. Combined with your recent addendum of "I'm only asking so I can show you why you're wrong", it makes for a particularly uninteresting thread.
Until you choose to debate like an equal, all I'm willing to do is refer you to the Wiki, which documents the (effectively) three questions you're asking here. I suspect some others feel similarly.
-
Why is lower half shruk vertically and upper half isnt?
Does perspective work only partially?
Why is nothing shrunk horizontally?
Does perspective work only vertically?
-
Until you choose to debate like an equal, all I'm willing to do is refer you to the Wiki, which documents the (effectively) three questions you're asking here. I suspect some others feel similarly.
1. Who is talking here? A representative of a place where the FE'ers machine gun any chance of an equal debate. Stop being a hypocrite!
2. That isn't making a debate unfair, that is just debating well. That's how you debate, you bring up evidence that shows you're right, then challenge others to prove it wrong. It is a fine example of good debating.
-
Until you choose to debate like an equal, all I'm willing to do is refer you to the Wiki, which documents the (effectively) three questions you're asking here. I suspect some others feel similarly.
1. Who is talking here? A representative of a place where the FE'ers machine gun any chance of an equal debate. Stop being a hypocrite!
2. That isn't making a debate unfair, that is just debating well. That's how you debate, you bring up evidence that shows you're right, then challenge others to prove it wrong. It is a fine example of good debating.
Yes, most debates are very one-sided, with one side having the upper hand. Hardly and debates are "equal". In fact, look at any post in the flat earth debate, they are almost all debating against the flat earth, not for it.
de·bate
noun
1.
a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
"opposing arguments are put forward"
If the other side of the debate cannot debunk the arguments put forward, then the debate winner is very clear.
-
post
Change your avatar. See rule 8.
-
post
Change your avatar. See rule 8.
Rule 8 is about alts, this is my main account and the avatar is a joke, im obviously not trying to impersonate pete
-
Rule 8 is about alts, this is my main account and the avatar is a joke, im obviously not trying to impersonate pete
I don't care if it is a joke. It can be misleading to people. I will give you one more chance to change it. You'll be getting whatever your next level of ban is next.
EDIT - Looks like a 7-day ban is up next since you have already had a 3-day.
EDIT 2 - Thank you.
-
This thread is hilarious:
S: Debate on my terms or don't debate at all!
[...]
S: Why is nobody debating me?
P: Personally, I dislike your terms.
>o<: Hypocrite! Scoundrel! Burn the witch!
-
Personally, I'm objecting to your approach of "here are my terms of conversation, and they are supremely reasonable".
May I then refer you something stated in the OP
Also, if you have any problems with the assumptions I proposed, let me know, so that we can agree on a presumed model, and work from there.
Regards,
supe
The OP states directly that if you have an issue with any of the assumptions made then state that and add why so you two can collaboratively define a model. Your accusation that the OP is MAKING you argue on their terms is simply false. So, therefore the most logical following question is: What issues do you have with the assumptions and/or structure in the OP's argument?
-
I'm not referring to your assumptions. I'm referring to your terms. To discuss your assumptions would be to engage you in the debate you're asking for.
-
I'm not referring to your assumptions. I'm referring to your terms. To discuss your assumptions would be to engage you in the debate you're asking for.
What terms, specifically, do you have a problem with? If you continue to say "meh, I don't like your terms," it doesn't give me anything to work with. I would be HAPPY to redress your grievances, but I can't do that until you tell me what, specifically, is the problem with my "terms."
I disagree, fundamentally, with your objection. I actually want to have a productive dialogue. From where I'm standing, you are attempting to shut down the debate before it can even happen with yet another vain attempt to delegitimize the discussion before it can begin. "Shut down" might be too dramatic, but what I mean is that you're attempting to dismiss the debate entirely, citing my problematic "terms" as the reason for your dismissal.
So, I say again, please tell me what is problematic about the terms of the OP, and I am happy to ameliorate them, if it means attracting more people to the discussion - including you - so that we can actually talk about the OP.
If you continue to carry on vaguely about terms without actually telling me what's wrong with them, I have to come to the conclusion that you don't actually have a specific problem with my terms, and you're instead trying to delegitimize the topic in an attempt to justify excusing yourself from it. I would expect you to come to a similar conclusion about me, if the roles were reversed.
EDIT: Also...
Combined with your recent addendum of "I'm only asking so I can show you why you're wrong", it makes for a particularly uninteresting thread.
Pretty sure that defines literally every debate ever. If you find it to be in bad taste when your debate opponent is motivated by a desire to prove their point and disprove yours, then you probably shouldn't engage in debates, ever.
I come in with the expectation that the other person is going to try to disprove my position. It doesn't mean we can't have an honest discussion, cede ground when called for, etc., it just means... that's how a debate works. Excusing yourself on this basis is just poor reasoning.
EDIT: ALSO also...
Personally, I'm objecting to your approach of "here are my terms of conversation, and they are supremely reasonable". Therefore, per your own advice, I will not be responding.
You mean this advice?
I'm willing to hear anyone's explanation, as long as that person is willing to be plied with reasonable objections. If I have reason to doubt your explanation, I'm going to raise a follow-up question, so please don't answer if you can't accept that possibility and be civilized about it.
Yeah, no, by all means. If you can't accept the possibility that I'm going to ask follow-up questions or object to some things... you know, like an actual debate... then yeah, refrain from responding. Because that's not a debate, that's a lecture.
-
You've got it. I have no interest in your lectures, and it seems that I'm the only one who chose to put in enough of an effort to inform you of it. Until you drop your "I am supreme reason and you're wrong but please tell me how you're wrong so I can lecture you" shtick, you're not going to find much engagement with anyone other than the RET yes-men (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1495.0).
And yeah, I'm clearly trying to shut down the debate. After all, it's been going so well before I explained to you that it's not going anywhere.
-
You've got it. I have no interest in your lectures...
No, see, you're twisting my words already like a smug cunt.
You had said, "per your advice, I will not be responding."
My only advice was that you not respond IF you could not accept the possibility of having your observations challenged or questioned... What would you call speaking without interjection if not lecturing?
But I was being vague before, so let me be clear: You aren't interested in exchange. You want to lecture. Don't pull this smug, juvenile crap where you take my vague suggestion and turn it around on me. As I said, if you can't engage the topic without having someone ply you with follow-up questions, by all means, sod right the fuck off.
... and it seems that I'm the only one who chose to put in enough of an effort to inform you of it.
That's really big of you.
Until you drop your "I am supreme reason and you're wrong but please tell me how you're wrong so I can lecture you" shtick...
Yeah... okay...
Let's just go over a few lines from the OP and my replies, and you tell me which part stands out as particularly "I am supreme reason-y."
I don't want to assume anything, because everybody has small variations in which flat earth model they subscribe to, but let's start by assuming a flat disc, for simplicity.
[...]
Before anyone gets too defensive (sorry, that's what happens, in my experience), I'm just asking. I'm willing to hear anyone's explanation, as long as that person is willing to be plied with reasonable objections. If I have reason to doubt your explanation, I'm going to raise a follow-up question, so please don't answer if you can't accept that possibility and be civilized about it.
That's about as close to my "terms" as I think we can get. Everything else dealt with the assumptions I listed off, which you already said aren't the problem. My "supreme reason-y" terms are the problem, whatever that means.
Oh! Speaking of which, this was also in the OP:
Also, if you have any problems with the assumptions I proposed, let me know, so that we can agree on a presumed model, and work from there.
: l
Am I "supreme reason" yet?
Am I foisting my "terms" upon you?
Or am I instead asking you to chime in if you have a problem with either my reason or my terms?
Oh, excuse me. How could I be so thoughtless? I'm such an egotistical turd.
> nb4 Pete quotes that and says something smug like "yes, I'm glad you're beginning to see things my way" like a predictable pedant
When at last we finally got into it a little, I even added the following concessions:
What terms, specifically, do you have a problem with? If you continue to say "meh, I don't like your terms," it doesn't give me anything to work with. I would be HAPPY to redress your grievances, but I can't do that until you tell me what, specifically, is the problem with my "terms."
[...]
So, I say again, please tell me what is problematic about the terms of the OP, and I am happy to ameliorate them, if it means attracting more people to the discussion - including you - so that we can actually talk about the OP.
All you've done is piss and moan about some vague suggestion that I'm proclaiming myself "supreme reason" and somehow foisting or demanding that it be my way or the highway. Well, for one thing, it's my thread, and for another, if you honestly can't accept terms like "hey, maybe let people ask some follow-up questions," I say again that you have no business in any debate, nevermind this one.
Other than that one request, I've been pretty straightforward, from the get go, that I'm willing to work with the other side until we can hash out a few assumptions and start questioning them.
... you're not going to find much engagement with anyone other than the RET yes-men (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1495.0).
At least they aren't afraid of answering simple questions.
Like some people.
: \
And yeah, I'm clearly trying to shut down the debate. After all, it's been going so well before I explained to you that it's not going anywhere.
(https://i.imgur.com/0MIDX6b.jpg)
Did you just skim past this next part or what?
"Shut down" might be too dramatic, but what I mean is that you're attempting to dismiss the debate entirely, citing my problematic "terms" as the reason for your dismissal.
[...]
If you continue to carry on vaguely about terms without actually telling me what's wrong with them, I have to come to the conclusion that you don't actually have a specific problem with my terms, and you're instead trying to delegitimize the topic in an attempt to justify excusing yourself from it. I would expect you to come to a similar conclusion about me, if the roles were reversed.
Keep spinnin' that yarn, Pete.
And you know what, there may be no one responding, but until you or someone else does respond, I have to assume that neither you nor anyone here can offer a reasonable explanation for the phenomena demonstrated in the OP. Your "supreme reason" criticism doesn't make a lick of sense, and I still maintain that you're attempting to sabotage the discussion by depicting it as illegitimate, until you can summon up the courage of your convictions to show me something different.
Last word's all yours, champ. I ain't got nothin' more to say to you if it's more smug, self-satisfied crap.
-
I generally consider no response to mean they concede. I think you thoroughly won this one.
-
I generally consider no response to mean they concede. I think you thoroughly won this one.
Nobody won anything.
Nobody came away from this learning anything.
This is a loss for both parties.
I fucking hate this suspicious space monkey race sometimes.
-
You had said, "per your advice, I will not be responding."
My only advice was that you not respond IF you could not accept the possibility of having your observations challenged or questioned... What would you call speaking without interjection if not lecturing?
It's more subtle and nuanced than that. Nobody has a problem with their debate counterparts responding to their points. However, it doesn't come anywhere near a proper debate if one of the parties assumes that the discussion concerns their correct, valid and reasonable arguments versus the other person's arguments, which are wrong before they were even stated.
Obviously people debate positions while considering themselves to be correct. However, you are missing even a trace of acceptance that you could be wrong. I, personally, am not interested in this sort of discussion. It is superbly off-putting to read things like "and before you get defensive, because I know you'll get defensive, I'm going to smack you down with reason, because you are unreasonable and bad". That is simply not an atmosphere that I'm going to engage in. If you are unwilling to change your style, you're unlikely to find conversation partners.
As I said, if you can't engage the topic without having someone ply you with follow-up questions, by all means, sod right the fuck off.
I did, originally (with amendments to your statement as per the above), but then you asked why you're not getting responses, so I explained. If you don't like that... well, sorry, I guess? Perhaps Reddit will be better-suited to your needs?
Let's just go over a few lines from the OP and my replies, and you tell me which part stands out as particularly "I am supreme reason-y."
Okay, let's. Though I'm going to expand beyond the OP, since you've revealed your positions with more detail afterwards. Emphasis mine, obviously.
Before anyone gets too defensive (sorry, that's what happens, in my experience), I'm just asking.
Sorry, the very moment you say something like that, you're not "just asking". You can protest this all you want, but that's just not how human communication works. It's one of those "I'm not <x>, but..." phrases - they're a tell-tale sign that you are, in fact, <x>.
I'm willing to hear anyone's explanation, as long as that person is willing to be plied with reasonable objections.
The problem here is that your objections are presumed to be reasonable. You are elevating your position in the debate to that of, effectively, a referee. I do not accept your attempts at assuming that position, and hence I am staying out of any debate that involves these terms. Note that I do not, in turn, propose another referee. I propose that you sit yourself down and follow the same rules and conventions as everyone else. Most threads remain public and open for everyone to view and make their own mind about what is and isn't correct. That's what this place is about.
If I have reason to doubt your explanation, I'm going to raise a follow-up question, so please don't answer if you can't accept that possibility and be civilized about it.
This statement is the most benign of the lot, but of course you have since shown yourself to not be particularly civilised in this thread. Your biggest sin here is that, again, you are imposing your own rules on a thread (even when they identically mirror the forum rules, which actually have some authority here). I understand why you might want to do that, but this is not the right place for it (go set up your own forum/subreddit/whatnot), and I am not personally interested in following your rules.
[/quote]
Guys, please. Don't just ignore inconvenient data. Address it head on. Give me SOMETHING to respond to, SOME kind of rationale, so I can hopefully show you... why that rationale falls short.
This is where you've completely wiped away any pretence of good faith, and pushed me to clarify that I won't be engaging you on your terms. The "I'm right, you're wrong, talk to me so I can tell you you're wrong" attitude simply cannot be missed or forgiven. This, good sir, is how you kill a forum thread.
Oh! Speaking of which, this was also in the OP:
Also, if you have any problems with the assumptions I proposed, let me know, so that we can agree on a presumed model, and work from there.
: l
Am I "supreme reason" yet?
Right, but I'm not discussing your assumptions. I made no statement about them either way, because I am not debating this subject on your terms.
So, I say again, please tell me what is problematic about the terms of the OP, and I am happy to ameliorate them, if it means attracting more people to the discussion - including you - so that we can actually talk about the OP.
Okay, I'll try to show some good faith. Here are my suggestions:
- Start a new thread about the subject and request this one to be locked. The well has been poisoned by both sides here, and I doubt the final result of any discussion would be particularly readable to future visitors. (This is important - people view our threads years after they have concluded. I know some of our rules and their enforcement are controversial, especially to newer posters, but this is one of the overarching reasons behind it)
- In said thread, avoid starting by explaining why you think the other side is wrong. Leave it to them to explain their point of view, and explain why you think RET is right instead. So, instead of saying "I assume FET says this, but it contradicts x, can you fix it?", say something like "The Sun appears to set behind the horizon, this appears to support RET for these reasons, can you please explain in more detail what FET has to say about sunrise and sunsets?
I'm especially interested in the apparent lack of change in size of the Sun over time, and the sinking effect itself." Obviously each of my descriptions here is extremely brief and simplified, but I hope you can see how both approaches dig at the same subject in very different ways. - Avoid personal assessments of your opponents, or your supporters. Saying things like "please don't get defensive (sorry, that's what tends to happen)" is most likely to cause people to get defensive. Don't call yourself reasonable (not everyone might agree), your opponents unreasonable (nobody likes that), don't say things like "please show me SOME reasoning so I can show you why it's wrong" (i.e. don't presume you'll win the debate - if you've already decided the winner, why have the debate at all?). Focus on your argument, and don't dilute it.
- Avoid presumptions in your thread title. "How come 'sun sink' and not 'sun shrink?"' is not only a forced joke that doesn't make grammatical sense, but it is yet another sign that you've already made up your mind on who is right here. Again - if you're already completely certain you're right, why have the debate?
I will omit the rest of your post. Most of it was personal insults, and general expressions of unhappiness. These are precisely the reason why I suggest that this thread should be locked.
Oh, and finally: *ahem*
Oh, excuse me. How could I be so thoughtless? I'm such an egotistical turd.
Yes, I'm glad you're beginning to see things my way.
-
Perhaps Reddit will be better-suited to your needs?
Yoo this is low-key one of the best insults you've served. 5/7
I just want to add that patience is really important in this forum, and that there's no reason for the whole 'why no responses?' bit or the drama in general. And to second starting a new thread, hopefully with cleaner arguments.
-
No, see, you're twisting my words already like a smug cunt.
Lay off the personal attacks in the upper fora. Warned.
FYI that is your 3rd warning, next one will be a 3-day break.
-
Perhaps Reddit will be better-suited to your needs?
Yoo this is low-key one of the best insults you've served. 5/7
I just want to add that patience is really important in this forum, and that there's no reason for the whole 'why no responses?' bit or the drama in general. And to second starting a new thread, hopefully with cleaner arguments.
I thought six days and 200+ views was patience enough.
Mods, please lock the thread.
You guys are a sensitive bunch. I understand that you don't appreciate my tone, really I do. I just think it's more important to be frank, and forthcoming, than to curtail one's tone or restrain one's speech just to satisfy someone else's sensitivity. I see people use this as an excuse to dismiss legitimate conversation more often than I see myself or anyone else overstepping some critical boundary in etiquette. The way Pete takes it, you would think I had come in here waving my dick around and calling you all a bunch of retards...
How much do I have to tip-toe around someone else's feelings, walking my words on egg-shells, avoiding even the most basic of lighthearted slights, before it's the other person's responsibility to sack up, look past my tone, look past being butt-hurt, and respond to the actual content of the post?
idk, guys
I deal with so much worse than whatever niggling problems Pete or anyone else has with my tone, or my terms, or whatever. I just assume everyone else can let it slide as easily as I do, and just respond to the topic. Sticks and stones, etc. I guess I was wrong to make that assumption.
I'll try to make a more sanitized post. I do so under protest, because I don't think anyone, let alone me, should have to cave to this kind of bullshit, but seeing as we're fitfully derailed, I haven't much other choice if I want to continue the discussion.
-
This thread is hilarious:
S: Debate on my terms or don't debate at all!
[...]
S: Why is nobody debating me?
P: Personally, I dislike your terms.
>o<: Hypocrite! Scoundrel! Burn the witch!
You're Hilarious.
"Hey, guys. How come this?" Then some videos, and an edit later saying he wants someone to debate how that is possible. Yet apparently that somehow means he wont accept any side of your debate. --- which is part of a debate..... Lets not argue our view just because the other person isn't going to see our view as an option --- is a good way to say you can't debate your side well enough so you're just giving up instead of trying to explain it. i.e. OP wins.