It's pretty crazy that the Earth, as seen from the Sun, about 150 million kilometers away, is just a dot; and yet the light from the Sun can somehow illuminate the underside but not the topside of the clouds as it sets.
I will, but let me preface my explanation that flattards never demand explanations on the flattard side of things, even though their failures/anomalies are much bigger. Flattards literally cannot explain half the night sky -- two poles on a spherical Earth, one pole in Flattard Land.
So, the explanation: It "can somehow illuminate the underside but not the topside". What, exactly, is the problem here? Take a piece of paper, curved, straight, whatever. Shine a light on top of it. Now rotate the paper or light until it is being lit from the underside. Magic!
It doesn't matter if the light is very far away, or small. It's just angles and line of sight.
Now can you explain why there's a southern pole of stars in Flattard Land?
[ - ] VitaminSieg [op] 1 point 11 monthsMay 25, 2024 11:55:07 ago (+2/-1)
Exactly. I'm sceptical of both models. Every explanation has problems. The more a model can answer questions the stronger it is and the closer to the truth is gets. Resisting questions strikes me as a sign of weakness.
If we still engage in the conversation, and offer questions, does that mean we immediately become FE'ers?
That depends. Do you ignore half the night sky like the flattards do, and give them a free pass? The rotating stars around two poles are a trivial consequence of a rotating spherical Earth, writ large in the night sky.
It's one thing to ask questions about things you don't understand, it's another to only do it in a one-sided fashion while ignoring that the mountain of evidence fits the spherical Earth model. If flattards spent 1% of the time questioning their own model as they do the spherical one, they wouldn't be flattards.
is it not at least odd, that the sun is moving and we revolve around it in such perfection that none of the surrounding bodies ever move away?
They are called stable orbits. Objects that don't have stable orbits tend to get kicked out.
Is it impossible to question anything without declaring a side? Can't we simply remain curious?
Do you ask the flattards questions about their models?
Is it intellectually criminal to question "established" facts?
Not necessarily, but at some point it becomes stupid when no amount of evidence or reason satisfies. Just look at the response I got after answering his question and replying to his objection:
"Okay guy. Good effort. Your faith is secure. Don't think too hard, you might hurt yourself."
Do you think he was ever sincere in looking for truth?
[ - ] VitaminSieg [op] 1 point 11 monthsMay 25, 2024 11:43:16 ago (+1/-0)
So that's what I was thinking, except your model more resembles a flat earth near sun model, whereas the real source of light is 150 million kms away. From a great enough distance the angles that we're talking about are impossible.
I'm not sure sure how flatearthers explain polarity, but starting off by stating 'there are two poles' begs the question. Maybe they say something like various 'points of attraction on an infinite plain'.
except your model more resembles a flat earth near sun model
I said the paper could be flat or curved. It doesn't matter, the principle is the same.
whereas the real source of light is 150 million kms away. From a great enough distance the angles that we're talking about are impossible.
I also said, "It doesn't matter if the light is very far away, or small. It's just angles and line of sight."
Your response is retarded. I don't care how far away an object is, when you rotate the line of sight the object will go through all angles.
I'm not sure sure how flatearthers explain polarity
Why don't you demand answers, then?
but starting off by stating 'there are two poles' begs the question.
No, flattard, it's a basic property of the model. On a rotating sphere, we would expect to see two poles of stars. In Flattard Land, we expect to see only one pole of stars. Guess what reality corresponds to?
You take a picture of some clouds lit from below at sunset, and think this means the Erf is flat. Yet you ignore half the night sky when it completely contradicts flattard Earth, but corresponds 100% with a spherical Earth.
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 0 points 11 monthsMay 25, 2024 00:59:56 ago (+2/-2)
[ + ] VitaminSieg
[ - ] VitaminSieg [op] 3 points 11 monthsMay 25, 2024 01:19:16 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 2 points 11 monthsMay 25, 2024 02:02:26 ago (+3/-1)
So, the explanation: It "can somehow illuminate the underside but not the topside". What, exactly, is the problem here? Take a piece of paper, curved, straight, whatever. Shine a light on top of it. Now rotate the paper or light until it is being lit from the underside. Magic!
It doesn't matter if the light is very far away, or small. It's just angles and line of sight.
Now can you explain why there's a southern pole of stars in Flattard Land?
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 2 points 11 monthsMay 25, 2024 10:50:17 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] VitaminSieg
[ - ] VitaminSieg [op] 1 point 11 monthsMay 25, 2024 11:55:07 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 11 monthsMay 26, 2024 11:46:07 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 0 points 11 monthsMay 25, 2024 17:59:54 ago (+0/-0)
That depends. Do you ignore half the night sky like the flattards do, and give them a free pass? The rotating stars around two poles are a trivial consequence of a rotating spherical Earth, writ large in the night sky.
It's one thing to ask questions about things you don't understand, it's another to only do it in a one-sided fashion while ignoring that the mountain of evidence fits the spherical Earth model. If flattards spent 1% of the time questioning their own model as they do the spherical one, they wouldn't be flattards.
They are called stable orbits. Objects that don't have stable orbits tend to get kicked out.
Do you ask the flattards questions about their models?
Not necessarily, but at some point it becomes stupid when no amount of evidence or reason satisfies. Just look at the response I got after answering his question and replying to his objection:
"Okay guy. Good effort. Your faith is secure. Don't think too hard, you might hurt yourself."
Do you think he was ever sincere in looking for truth?
[ + ] VitaminSieg
[ - ] VitaminSieg [op] 1 point 11 monthsMay 25, 2024 11:43:16 ago (+1/-0)
I'm not sure sure how flatearthers explain polarity, but starting off by stating 'there are two poles' begs the question. Maybe they say something like various 'points of attraction on an infinite plain'.
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony -1 points 11 monthsMay 25, 2024 13:55:20 ago (+0/-1)
I said the paper could be flat or curved. It doesn't matter, the principle is the same.
I also said, "It doesn't matter if the light is very far away, or small. It's just angles and line of sight."
Your response is retarded. I don't care how far away an object is, when you rotate the line of sight the object will go through all angles.
Why don't you demand answers, then?
No, flattard, it's a basic property of the model. On a rotating sphere, we would expect to see two poles of stars. In Flattard Land, we expect to see only one pole of stars. Guess what reality corresponds to?
You take a picture of some clouds lit from below at sunset, and think this means the Erf is flat. Yet you ignore half the night sky when it completely contradicts flattard Earth, but corresponds 100% with a spherical Earth.
That makes you a flattard.
[ + ] VitaminSieg
[ - ] VitaminSieg [op] 0 points 11 monthsMay 25, 2024 15:03:15 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony -1 points 11 monthsMay 25, 2024 16:40:37 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Steelerfish
[ - ] Steelerfish -2 points 11 monthsMay 25, 2024 01:04:15 ago (+0/-2)
[ + ] VitaminSieg
[ - ] VitaminSieg [op] 1 point 11 monthsMay 25, 2024 01:18:55 ago (+2/-1)