Edit: This was redundant, so I'm removing my own video.
Last edited:
I'm challenging xCivicx to A Debate About Flat Earth
- Thread starter Th3Birdman
- Start date
-
- Tags
- debate flat earth
Literally every point you made here is false.
1. Stop trying to avoid what I have already presented and trying to move on. I'll get to this video, but only after you have provided me with a model that explains the phenomenon we see in reality, i.e., seasons, day night cycle, 24 hours of night/day in Antarctic and Arctic, etc.
2. You don't know what a sidereal day and solar day are. Multiple people in the thread (including me) have showed you that you don't know the difference between these two concepts. You confuse a sidereal day with a solar day. You are just repeating already debunked Flerf talking points.
3. This is gibberish. You don't even know what you're trying to say. Planes continue to retain the momentum imparted upon them by the spin of the Earth. This is baby's first physics lesson:
Inertial frame of reference - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
4. Here is water curving:
5. I'll do you one better-- here is an image and video of water AS A BALL, which is also evidence of water curving:
6. Theories are how facts are explained, genius. You don't know what words mean.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!www.dictionary.com
7. You haven't posted a SINGLE item that debunks the Heliocentric model. It is embarrassing that you believe you have.
And finally, you have NOT explained the seasons. Just saying something is not an explanation-- YOU NEED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF THAT ASSERTION.
This requires a testable model. This is why we keep asking you for a model. In order for a statement about nature to have any power, it must come with a model that can be tested. You admit your model doesn't exist, therefore YOU HAVE NOT EXPLAINED THE SEASONS
You at best have a hypothesis, but one that is easily disproved by observation and math.
You're definitely never getting to that video because you know you have no answer for it
YOU dont understand the difference between a sidereal and solar day. Im not confusing them. Im saying that they are 2 different lengths of time, so they will quickly cause a time disparity, over time. You posted my quote explaining this but instead of focusing on the math in that quote, you tried to nitpick the definitions, which is weird
You really just posted a wave as an example of water "curving". Its disingenuous stuff like this that makes me want to stop responding to you because you know that was a ridiculous response from you
Show me a body of water that is AT REST, curving
Im ready for the plane discussion whenever you are because what you just posted is absolutely wrong on multiple levels
And again, i asked you to post an example of water curving around a ball and you tried that "well in space you can" deflection already. You posted a water ball. Thats not what i asked you for. I asked you to post an example of water sticking to an object and curving around said object. Once again, AT REST. I know that balls of water can exist, theyre called water bubbles
I have explained the seasons. I also produced video evidence of 24 hour days and 24 hour nights at certain positions on earth, which the heliocentric model cannot explain
The heliocentric model also does not explain why the constellations have remained mostly fixed over multiple centuries, even while the earth is supposedly moving in multiple different directions at very high speeds
You keep asking me for "testable models" yet you arent producing any testable models yourself.
How do i "test" that the solar system is moving a million miles per hour in one direction??. How do i "test" that water can stick to a ball if, according to you, i have to go to "space" to do so? How can i "test" that mars is a solid object? How can I "test" that the universe is expanding at a fixed rate? Its hypocritical of you to ask for things that you cannot provide and have not provided
I'm ready for the flight discussion whenever you are
Again, you're nitpicking. Ngt described the earth like this, not to idiots, to other intellectualsAnother basket of bullshyt and lies.
YOU SAID NASA OFFICIALLY STATED THAT WAS THE SHAPE OF THE EARTH. Stop fukking lying.
Give me a link of NASA referring to the Earth in the way Neil did.
Neil is literally the first and only human that has referred to the Earth as "pear-shaped", because he is a science communicator, and is trying to dumb it down for speds like you that can't understand basic things like what an oblate spheroid is.
Everyone to say it after him is repeating what he said because it's a good approximation and visual for the lay person.
Every other institution of science refers to it as an oblate spheroid. It's sad that you don't understand the dumbed down version.
And the crescent moon photo was a photo of a crescent moon. The Moon moves, you idiot-- by the time it's a waxing crescent, it has MOVED. It is NOT the same thing or even the same position as a New Moon, because if it was IT WOULD BE A NEW MOON.
Jesus.
This is what the shape of the earth is. He used the exact same terminology as nasa, he just went into more detail. None of the spheres you posted look anything at all like an oblate spheroid. Im not sure why you're still harping on this point. You are absolutely wrong here
I know the new moon is in a different positon. Once again, that photo was to give context to my point, that a new moon is ALSO IN FRONT OF THE SUN, LIKE A SOLAR ECLIPSE IS, YET TWO DIFFERENT THINGS OCCUR. Why do you keep tslking around my main points just to nitpick? Why cant you stay on topic?
You need to understand how debates work. I was the first person to answer a question in this thread.
Therefore, it is my turn to ask a question-- my question was centered around you not having a model, as I was asking about observed phenomena, and you responded to it with talking points from a model that you admitted is false.
This means you still have not addressed those questions. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but if you admit your model was wrong, then you need to start over and explain the seasons.
Just saying "ajkfhgsdkljhf" is not an answer. You must demonstrate how "ajkfhgsdkljhf" makes sense and provide for us something we can falsify. That is how this works.
So, start over-- explain the seasons, the day and night cycle, and eclipses.
If you lead with "Concentric centripetal motion", you must explain WHAT CAUSES THIS ROTATION. If your answer is "I don't know", YOU HAVE ADMITTED TO BEING WRONG ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING.
Nikka I smoked you on this MONTHS AGO. Like always, you ignore shyt that proved you wrong:
No, you want to run away because you are getting torched and you can't take the heat.
Nothing about that is disingenuous you fukking clown-- waves are a result of the tidal pull of the moon, AKA gravity.
You recognize that tides are a real thing, right? That means at any give time, some place on Earth is experiencing low tide, and another place is experiencing high tide.
Guess what that means? That somewhere on Earth, there is a large swell in the ocean, meaning that body of water is naturally curving.
The end result of this IS A WAVE.
Speaking of shyt that is disingenuous, what body of water is at rest?
Oceans, lakes, and other large bodies of water are always in motion, mainly due to tidal forces from the Moon.
So let me flip this back on you-- on your flat earth, why do large bodies of water have swells and waves, if not the gravity well of the moon?
Oh I'm sure you are ready to avoid answering my questions that you cannot answer, but I'm not going to allow you to do that:
Thoroughly explain seasons, day/night, and eclipses using a single model that can be tested for its efficacy and accuracy.
I have a model that does that:
Heliocentrism - Wikipedia
My model is supported by math, observation and tests. Where is yours?
I provided what you should have asked for, because your question is disingenuous.
You're asking for water to misbehave; that is to say, any object near enough to the Earth will be affected by Earth's gravity and will be pulled to it instead.
So you started with a false premise and a misunderstanding of how the physics work: what you are asking for can only be demonstrated IN SPACE.
And bubbles by definition debunk you. Why do bubbles of water form if gravity doesn't exist, you moron?
Literally, bubbles don't work without gravity. According to the stupid shyt you believe, a bubble would never form as the liquid would simply fall to the Earth.
YOU HAVE NOT explained the seasons, and the heliocentric model DOES explain the 24 hours of day/night, dummy. I showed you this months ago, stop with the bullshyt:
What Is Antarctica? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids
Antarctica is a continent. Antarctica covers Earth's South Pole.
You don't even know what you're arguing at this point. Fukk's sake this was mind numbing. Fam, you literally don't know your opposition's argument. This is an embarrassing post.
Hahahaha.
The first fukking post in this thread is me giving you a scientific experiment that proves why we don't see stars in images of the Earth.
Literally the first goddamn post.
Math, specifically trigonometry.
You don't know a shred of advanced math, which is why you don't understand HOW we know what we know.
YOU don't have to do anything. You can accept what others who have already done it have to say.
I have already provided unedited images that prove the shape, and that water is obviously "sticking to it".
Your response was to question the image, which I have proven is a real image multiple times. It existed before CGI/Computer graphics existed, and is made on real film paper.
I proved why it doesn't show stars.
You have lost that part of this debate THOROUGHLY, and that's why you are no longer talking about it and trying to hastily move on to another flerf talking point.
Again, we have images of Mars, and videographic evidence. Multiple space agencies have been to Mars at this point. China JUST landed on Mars not too long ago:
China's 1st Mars rover 'Zhurong' lands on the Red Planet
It's China's first Mars rover landing ever.
Except, I have actually provided evidence that you can test for yourself.
We are talking about the shape of the Earth-- YOU brought up Mars, goofy. My claims are testable-- you can visit Antarctica yourself, and film the 24 hour day/night cycle. There is no ice wall.
You can see curvature from a plane. But apparently, you've never been on a plane and looked outside the windows.
I literally provided MY OWN PERSONAL IMAGES FROM MY FLIGHT FROM HAWAII IN THIS THREAD ALREADY:
You can literally see the Earth curves, and this is my own personal image, so no NASA involved. I'm going to Japan next month; I'll be sure to take more pictures for you.
Last edited:
Nikka!
The VERY FIRST post in this thread, THE FIRST FUKKING POST, debunks what you just said:
Wrong-- this debunks your point entirely!
You are currently juelzing-- you originally posted those images because you thought they were of New Moons. Stop fukking lying:
You are confused and trying to obfuscate what we are talking about because you are confused.
New moons do NOT only occur during night. Solar eclipses ONLY happen during New Moons, meaning new moons do not occur during the night. You're debunking your own talking point but you're not perceptive enough to realize that
New moons do NOT occur at night. I have no idea where you're getting this from.
You're slipping
/GettyImages-183847542-5ac4d66004d1cf0037f5675f.jpg)
As you can see, you are responding to ME stating New Moons aren't at night by posting crescent moons, because YOU THOUGHT THESE WERE NEW MOONS.
YOU ARE LYING.
I don't understand how you try to lie on a message board when I have the ability to find what you said and quote it:
That is you, in black and white, stating quite clearly that you believed the images you posted were of new moons.
Why lie about this breh?
Why not just admit, hey I fukked up, you got me?
What do you have to gain by lying that you won't lose more by getting exposed by me?
The fukk is your problem with admitting you were wrong about something???
That is you, in black and white, stating quite clearly that you believed the images you posted were of new moons.
Why lie about this breh?
Why not just admit, hey I fukked up, you got me?
What do you have to gain by lying that you won't lose more by getting exposed by me?
The fukk is your problem with admitting you were wrong about something???
↓R↑LYB
I trained Sheng Long and Shonuff
This nikka acting like they don't have Asian supermarkets in every major city in AmericaBreh, this is a common pear in Asia. It literally appears across China, Korea and Japan, a combined population of 1.6 billion people.
Just because YOU are under-educated and don't know something exists doesn't mean others don't. A brilliant man like Neil would know of this fruit, especially if I knew about it.
And further, your response to being disproven about the pear thing is, "haha, you googled that"?
Matter fact I had one a few weeks ago
↓R↑LYB
I trained Sheng Long and Shonuff
I told that nikka I looked out a telescope as a kid and saw that Mars was round and he basically said don't believe my lying eyes.
Its like the articles that said after the airplane was invented many people still would not believe it happened.
Plus I can't trust a nikka that don't believe in gravity
This nikka acting like they don't have Asian supermarkets in every major city in America
Matter fact I had one a few weeks ago
Tell him again.
Breh, the first pear in an article about pears is the same one I brought up lmao:
Pears: the fantastic, fibrous fall fruit
Coming in more than a dozen varieties, pears are the perfect fruit for fall.
www.shine.cn
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,063
- Reputation
- 8,154
- Daps
- 122,269
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
So, crescent Moons are new moons on Flat Earth?
That's right up there with not knowing the difference between sidereal days and solar days.
That's right up there with not knowing the difference between sidereal days and solar days.
So, crescent Moons are new moons on Flat Earth?
That's right up there with not knowing the difference between sidereal days and solar days.
Breh, I have literally seen you multiple times explain to this nikka the difference between a sidereal day and a solar day, and he STILL in here faking like we ain't beat him over the head with this shyt already.
I literally already explained it to breh. He's a fukking lie.
Y'all want a bit of irony?
Civic stay on some fake militant shyt, talking about how "his ancestors" this and that, and disregarding science because its from "THE WHITE MAN".
But he's in here caping for the European Pear, instead of the far more common Asian pear
Civic stay on some fake militant shyt, talking about how "his ancestors" this and that, and disregarding science because its from "THE WHITE MAN".
But he's in here caping for the European Pear, instead of the far more common Asian pear
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,063
- Reputation
- 8,154
- Daps
- 122,269
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
Dunning-Kruger in full E-F-F-E-C-T.
If one of those freakin' flerfs on YouTube hasn't already given him a response, he starts floundering.
THAT'S WHY HE DUCKED MY BAN BET, PUT ME ON IGNORE, THEN STARTED LYING ABOUT ME!!!
If one of those freakin' flerfs on YouTube hasn't already given him a response, he starts floundering.
THAT'S WHY HE DUCKED MY BAN BET, PUT ME ON IGNORE, THEN STARTED LYING ABOUT ME!!!