Author Topic: Debunk of a Flat Earth without using science but only empirical observations (Read 7051 times)

Matthew · « **Reply #60 on:** February 17, 2022, 01:15:42 PM »

Quote from: Marion on February 17, 2022, 12:25:09 PM

Conclusion: Following the book of Enoch, the rising and setting of sun, moon, and stars is real, and not apparent only. The book of Enoch contradicts the flat earthers' model of the trajectories of sun and moon circling at constant height (Lady Blount, Eric Dubay, most online flat earthers, CI flat earthers). It also contradicts the claim that rising and setting are apparent only (explained on CI by an unreal "Perspective Matrix").

So much for the credibility and solid research of CI flat earthers.

https://book-ofenoch.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/book-of-enoch.pdf

I make no claim or pretense that I've come up with anything approaching a "solid" or thorough alternative model for how the natural world works. That's what professional scientists SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING all these decades instead of chasing after aliens, the "origins of life", and the "origins of the universe".

All I can do is *reject* a nonsensical model for the nonsense it is. That goes for the ball earth/spinning ball/Big Bang, that goes for the "official story" on 9/11, and many other things.

I can't tell you exactly who did what on Sept 11, 2001. Some of that information is simply not available -- the bad guys don't have recordings much less videos of their machinations available on the Internet. But what I *can* do is call out the official story as impossible malarkey, which it is.

That also goes for the COVID hoax. I don't know what exactly this new disease "COVID" is or where it came from, but the popular mythology of the Cult of Covid (it's a deadly disease, we're in a Pandemic, we should all be afraid, it's worth shutting down businesses for, it requires that you be vaccinated, masks somehow stop it) I completely reject.

Matthew · « **Reply #61 on:** February 17, 2022, 01:17:27 PM »

P.S. That also goes for the Crisis in the Church.

I've said MANY TIMES that the Crisis is a supernatural mystery, defying a detailed explanation OR SOLUTION by humans alone.

I can say we have a problem -- leave the Conciliar Church structures completely, stay completely aloof from the whole Conciliar Church -- without having a complete multi-step solution to the Crisis in my back pocket. All I know is: to preserve my Faith, I have to do this. That doesn't mean I have a solution to the Crisis, or that such is even within my grasp.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #62 on:** February 17, 2022, 02:28:48 PM »

Marion and others appeal to the logical fallacy called "false dilemma"....they say: "either you can explain FE fully or it's not true."

Meanwhile, if FE's point out a problem with globe earth, they just prance out some "scientific term" which is supposed to explain away the problem with high-brow words.

Globe Earther's have a vast array of these high-brow scientific terms because the scientific community doesn't spend their time on true science (objectively looking for truth), but defending an agenda and teaching their view (for which they are paid by govt grants). For modern science, they have decades and 1000s upon 1000s of scientists who do nothing else but "prove" the narrative (i.e. their religion).

Dankward · « **Reply #63 on:** February 17, 2022, 04:22:44 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on February 17, 2022, 07:26:36 AM

Are you A) high or B) drunk when you write nonsense like this? It's not a matter of disagreement or agreement on a position. I'm saying it literally DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.

It probably seemed quite sane and profound when you wrote it -- but in the morning, when the pot and/or booze wears off, it's a load of silly nonsense.

You wrote this at 3:22 AM, and your other nonsense post was in the 1:00 AM range.

I refuse to believe Donachie is serious when he writes these posts. Either high, drunk, trolling or using a translator? I don't know. It's just incoherent ramblings.

Tradman, this is not a case of "you globers".

Dankward · « **Reply #64 on:** February 17, 2022, 04:25:22 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 17, 2022, 02:28:48 PM

Marion and others appeal to the logical fallacy called "false dilemma"....they say: "either you can explain FE fully or it's not true."

Meanwhile, if FE's point out a problem with globe earth, they just prance out some "scientific term" which is supposed to explain away the problem with high-brow words.

Globe Earther's have a vast array of these high-brow scientific terms because the scientific community doesn't spend their time on true science (objectively looking for truth), but defending an agenda and teaching their view (for which they are paid by govt grants). For modern science, they have decades and 1000s upon 1000s of scientists who do nothing else but "prove" the narrative (i.e. their religion).

Either you offer a better congruent explanation for all natural phenomena (observations) or I won't believe you because your worldview is not reasonable, not evidence based, but belief based.

Tradman · « **Reply #65 on:** February 17, 2022, 04:44:20 PM »

Quote from: Dankward on February 17, 2022, 04:22:44 PM

I refuse to believe Donachie is serious when he writes these posts. Either high, drunk, trolling or using a translator? I don't know. It's just incoherent ramblings.

Tradman, this is not a case of "you globers".

So, you're not a glober? Just because you're not all on the same page, if someone thinks earth is a globe and defends it, they are a glober.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #66 on:** February 17, 2022, 05:28:58 PM »

Quote

Either you offer a better congruent explanation for all natural phenomena (observations) or I won't believe you because your worldview is not reasonable, not evidence based, but belief based.

1. A perfect example of the "false dilemma" logical fallacy.
2. That's not how the scientific method works. Science works by examining each thing individually, to test it's certitude. Then you combine all proven facts together to form a "worldview".
3. FE at the moment is still examining specifics, so such a "worldview" doesn't exist. The globe view's worldview, however, is sinking, because it is not founded on proven facts.

Donachie · « **Reply #67 on:** February 17, 2022, 05:31:56 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on February 17, 2022, 07:26:36 AM

Are you A) high or B) drunk when you write nonsense like this? It's not a matter of disagreement or agreement on a position. I'm saying it literally DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.

It probably seemed quite sane and profound when you wrote it -- but in the morning, when the pot and/or booze wears off, it's a load of silly nonsense.

You wrote this at 3:22 AM, and your other nonsense post was in the 1:00 AM range.

It makes total sense but perhaps one doesn't want to understand it. This question involves physics as well as logic as much as the truth of simple facts. As in this question, when is a dog or boat upside down? and which is the right side up? The way to answer that is in relation to the center (a major center) in extension and intension of the object.

Besides that, do universals exist? I say they do. Bertrand Russell even advocated for universals by the simple principle of likeness, as in like this or like that. This question of universals and likeness also impacts space and the matter of geometric relation. The way to work out the question of universals in space is through sphericity not flatness. For the Earth to be flat messes things up in terms of the reality of universals.

One should remember too that the principle of vision in the eyeball works in sphericity not flatness. The important things there are the sphericity of water and light. There are principles there that will relate to the rest of creation ... including the shape of the Earth. Thales speculated that the world (the Earth and so forth as the cosmos) rested on water, but then the question is how does one really believe that? So then it is water all the way down (instead of turtles) to the last drop, which brings up the problem again of infinite regress which flat Earthers will never get around (no pun intended exactly), whether it's the sphericity of drops of water or counting numbers to the very last one.

If at the edge of the Earth it is not turtles, golf balls or drops of water all the way down, then it must be at least the counting numbers (which are round too), but one'll never reach the end. That's why I suggest instead the uniform relation of the curve of a circle and that of a sphere to the infinite. That way one can stop counting all the way down and just accept the curve.

Nature has a way and tries to find a way to minimize the relation to the infinite to increase stability of a thing, especially a little thing like the Earth.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/221210/why-sphere-minimizes-surface-area-for-a-given-volume

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #68 on:** February 17, 2022, 05:42:21 PM »

You have the wrong mental picture of FE. The earth, as a whole, is a sphere (including the firmament and bottomless pit). The land (upon which we walk) alone is flat.

I can see why you think FE makes no sense if you simply picture earth as a flat disc, while ignoring the firmament and the depths below.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #69 on:** February 17, 2022, 06:03:58 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 17, 2022, 05:42:21 PM

You have the wrong mental picture of FE. The earth, as a whole, is a sphere (including the firmament and bottomless pit). The land (upon which we walk) alone is flat.

I can see why you think FE makes no sense if you simply picture earth as a flat disc, while ignoring the firmament and the depths below.

Many cannot seem to get over the whole "infinite void" of space angle which is central to the modern cosmology, which is why they immediately jump to the idea that the earth is a flat planetoid floating in space. Rather than realize that the universe is the earth-plane enclosed in the system you describe. There are no other "earth-like planets" out there that we can go to. We live in a bubble with waters above and waters below. The planets (i.e. "wandering stars") are just that: wandering stars and may only be miles in diameter and subsist in the waters above, or within, the solid Firmament itself.

Marion · « **Reply #70 on:** February 17, 2022, 06:28:35 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on February 17, 2022, 01:15:42 PM

I make no claim or pretense that I've come up with anything approaching a "solid" or thorough alternative model for how the natural world works. That's what professional scientists SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING all these decades instead of chasing after aliens, the "origins of life", and the "origins of the universe".

All I can do is *reject* a nonsensical model for the nonsense it is. That goes for the ball earth/spinning ball/Big Bang, that goes for the "official story" on 9/11, and many other things.

I can't tell you exactly who did what on Sept 11, 2001. Some of that information is simply not available -- the bad guys don't have recordings much less videos of their machinations available on the Internet. But what I *can* do is call out the official story as impossible malarkey, which it is.

That also goes for the COVID hoax. I don't know what exactly this new disease "COVID" is or where it came from, but the popular mythology of the Cult of Covid (it's a deadly disease, we're in a Pandemic, we should all be afraid, it's worth shutting down businesses for, it requires that you be vaccinated, masks somehow stop it) I completely reject.

I understand this. My best example is: The existence of pathogenic viruses hasn't been proven, at least not to me, so I assume there aren't any. That doesn't mean that I have an alternative explanation for so called "contaminous" diseases. And I don't subscribe to more or less esoteric ideas of e.g. Dr. Stefan Lanka, who on the one hand has demonstrated that current virologist theories are BS, but on the other hand offers ludicrous alternative explanations. Same thing for Dr. Andrew Kauffman, and Dr. Tom Cowan.

Concerning the topic of this thread, to reject much, most, or all of NASA, ISS, Moon landings, astronomy, etc., some people seem to feel the need to react by defending obscure alternative theories. Based on outlandish folks like Samuel Birley Rowbotham, Lady Elizabeth Anne Mould de Sodington Blount, Eric Dubay, and others, they defend a theory which is philosophically absurd, just like Heliocentrism, which was condemned as such by the Roman Inquisiton.

I agree with you. To reject what government, science, or whoever presents as truth, as acceptable, as reasonable, one doesn't need to present an alternative theory. And I think one better well watches out, to not fall for the next best offered "alternatives". It's in the well known Protocols. "They" control both sides.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #71 on:** February 17, 2022, 06:37:01 PM »

Quote from: Donachie on February 17, 2022, 05:31:56 PM

It makes total sense but perhaps one doesn't want to understand it.

Punk charlatan.

Marion · « **Reply #72 on:** February 17, 2022, 06:40:14 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 17, 2022, 02:28:48 PM

Marion and others appeal to the logical fallacy called "false dilemma"....they say: "either you can explain FE fully or it's not true."

Meanwhile, if FE's point out a problem with globe earth, they just prance out some "scientific term" which is supposed to explain away the problem with high-brow words.

Globe Earther's have a vast array of these high-brow scientific terms because the scientific community doesn't spend their time on true science (objectively looking for truth), but defending an agenda and teaching their view (for which they are paid by govt grants). For modern science, they have decades and 1000s upon 1000s of scientists who do nothing else but "prove" the narrative (i.e. their religion).

You just present a strawman logical fallacy. I (and others) never said what you say we said. Consequently, you didn't quote anyone saying what you say we said.

A despicable comment of yours.

You don't quote any logical fallacy of mine or anyone else, but just claim that your opponents present such. If you want to convince not just the retarded, like yourself, you would have to quote our alleged fallacies.

You react on my recent post about the "Book of Enoch". I showed that it contradicts the known flat earthers models of the trajectories of sun, moon, and stars. And my comment hasn't been refuted so far. No one even tried to. Not even you.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #73 on:** February 17, 2022, 06:40:23 PM »

Quote from: Dankward on February 17, 2022, 04:22:44 PM

I refuse to believe Donachie is serious when he writes these posts. Either high, drunk, trolling or using a translator? I don't know. It's just incoherent ramblings.

Even another anti-FE-er sees your posts are incoherent, imbecilic trash, Donachie.

Donachie · « **Reply #74 on:** March 27, 2022, 12:08:29 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 17, 2022, 05:42:21 PM

You have the wrong mental picture of FE. The earth, as a whole, is a sphere (including the firmament and bottomless pit). The land (upon which we walk) alone is flat.

I can see why you think FE makes no sense if you simply picture earth as a flat disc, while ignoring the firmament and the depths below.

Since the Earth is a sphere, the flatness in it and along the surface is tangential. How many tangents are there to a sphere is how flat so flat. It's like al-Kindi rays and corners and all the aspects of astro-weathers and bills to be paid all up in here and all across the great wide world. The flat Earthers confuse the stillness of it with flatness, since stillness seems flat to them rather than round, like the flat surface of calm water. Yet all water is as round as pure space in the drops and the dew.

About space and the bank, to continue on with such notes and observations, even in empiricism there is the question of infinite regress and how many tangents to a sphere, that Husserl attempted to address. Some of those manuscripts have been lost, however. But this is only partly to address Feral Rezerve Bank and WEF empirosity and how those astronomical numbers are never gonna get paid as flat broke as many people are. Flat broke is flat as another tangent to a sphere of some activity, for examples.

Author Topic: Debunk of a Flat Earth without using science but only empirical observations (Read 7051 times)

Matthew

Re: Debunk of a Flat Earth without using science but only empirical observations

Matthew

Re: Debunk of a Flat Earth without using science but only empirical observations

Pax Vobis

Re: Debunk of a Flat Earth without using science but only empirical observations

Dankward

Re: Debunk of a Flat Earth without using science but only empirical observations

Dankward

Re: Debunk of a Flat Earth without using science but only empirical observations

Tradman

Re: Debunk of a Flat Earth without using science but only empirical observations

Pax Vobis

Re: Debunk of a Flat Earth without using science but only empirical observations

Donachie

Re: Debunk of a Flat Earth without using science but only empirical observations

Pax Vobis

Re: Debunk of a Flat Earth without using science but only empirical observations

DigitalLogos

Re: Debunk of a Flat Earth without using science but only empirical observations

Marion

Re: Debunk of a Flat Earth without using science but only empirical observations

gladius_veritatis

Re: Debunk of a Flat Earth without using science but only empirical observations

Marion

Re: Debunk of a Flat Earth without using science but only empirical observations

gladius_veritatis

Re: Debunk of a Flat Earth without using science but only empirical observations

Donachie

Re: Debunk of a Flat Earth without using science but only empirical observations