What the world has come to...

[Tunnelcat]

No one can understand what you're saying because most of it is nonsense backed up by absolutely nothing coherent. And only YOU can let Isaac troll you. If you don't like it, don't respond back, simple.

[Neo]

I don't need you to tell me how to deal with trolls. What I said to him was easy to understand. You also haven't proven it to be nonsense, that's just an ad hominem argument.

[Isaac]

I don't need you to tell me how to deal with trolls. What I said to him was easy to understand. You also haven't proven it to be nonsense, that's just an ad hominem argument.

How am I trolling you if I've only been honest?

[vision]

Nobody cares about those papers, man.

It affected a whole industry dedicated to making scientific instruments worth up to a million dollars each. That powerful industry didn't conspire to defame my lab, they accepted the results and changed their business model because that's what you do when you have science literacy.

[Tunnelcat]

Whenever Neo gets around to showing us all pictures or videos of that army of God's soldiers guarding the edge of the earth from the rest of us even seeing it, then we'll have proof.

[Neo]

Nobody's going to let you visit the edges and the part where the ice runs into the firmament; has nothing to do with God's soldiers.

vision, I'm glad you earned some money from the scientific establishment. I told them about quantum gravity and they said it's only true if they can find the graviton particle but they don't want to use it. There are also some scientists who came up with alternate theories of quantum gravity after I had my idea, but I doubt they'll see the light of day until like 2045. >_> Remember they weren't teaching nuclear physics in schools during WWII, so they don't keep the masses up to date, so don't act like you're at the cutting edge of science.

[Neo]

by the way, why did the subject line change?

[Darth Wang]

Nobody's going to let you visit the edges and the part where the ice runs into the firmament; has nothing to do with God's soldiers.

Hard to visit a place that doesn't exist. You can take a commercial flight from Santiago to Sydney in less than 15 hours, which would be impossible on a flat Earth.

[Isaac]

Guys, I have to admit something. I'm also one of Neo's alt accounts.

[Tunnelcat]

Nobody's going to let you visit the edges and the part where the ice runs into the firmament; has nothing to do with God's soldiers.

Who or what is going to stop anyone from going there? Magic soldiers or barriers? You know humans like to explore, so someone would've tried by now many, many times.

And the subject line changed because I split this thread off from another because it drifted into a flat earth discussion awhile back.

[Neo]

Oh okay. There are people who would stop you. We're only allowed to go to certain areas of "Antarctica." If it takes soldiers to stop someone then that's what it takes. They do that at Area 51 too.

Nobody's going to let you visit the edges and the part where the ice runs into the firmament; has nothing to do with God's soldiers.

Hard to visit a place that doesn't exist. You can take a commercial flight from Santiago to Sydney in less than 15 hours, which would be impossible on a flat Earth.

You know, like you I can't believe you until I take that flight myself.

[Darth Wang]

Oh okay. There are people who would stop you. We're only allowed to go to certain areas of "Antarctica." If it takes soldiers to stop someone then that's what it takes. They do that at Area 51 too.

The perimeter of Area 51 is a few dozen miles long. The perimeter of the flat Earth version of Antarctica is over 70,000 miles long (since it encircles the entire world). Not really comparable.

In fact, you can easily disprove flat Earth geography by just circumnavigating Antarctica in a boat or plane, without ever getting close to it. It can be done in much less distance than it would require on the flat Earth model.

You know, like you I can't believe you until I take that flight myself.

If you have the time and money, there's nothing stopping you from taking it. Are you going to claim that everyone who has been on that flight is in on the conspiracy?

[Top Gun]

Oh okay. There are people who would stop you. We're only allowed to go to certain areas of "Antarctica." If it takes soldiers to stop someone then that's what it takes. They do that at Area 51 too.

What "people"? Where is your actual hard physical evidence? And no, the magical voices you hear in your head don't count.

[Isaac]

Oh okay. There are people who would stop you. We're only allowed to go to certain areas of "Antarctica." If it takes soldiers to stop someone then that's what it takes. They do that at Area 51 too.

Why don't you just go for a year:

https://gylantarctica.workbrightats.com ... 94893.html

edit:

you can take your snow blower with you

[Tunnelcat]

He'd just say McMurdo Station is as far as you can go, nevermind that the South Pole has been visited, from every direction by multiple nations and no one has been stopped from doing so, other than by freezing to death first.

You know, in this day and age, I CANNOT believe we are even having this back and forth conversation at all.

[Isaac]

My point is they'll pay him to go visit the south pole and he can walk around going "uhh... where's the people stopping me?"

[Neo]

I’m surprised you guys still want to talk about it. I think Darth Wang is lying. Lol.

Pretty much everyone goes along with the guided tour of Antarctica and they don’t do their own exploration.

[Darth Wang]

I’m surprised you guys still want to talk about it. I think Darth Wang is lying. Lol.

Everything I said can easily be fact checked.

Pretty much everyone goes along with the guided tour of Antarctica and they don’t do their own exploration.

That's because it's one of the most inhospitable areas on Earth, and if you're not a trained survivalist who is prepared for those conditions, you probably won't get very far, and you might not make it back at all. But there is technically nothing stopping you from trying, if you have the money and drive to do it.

[Isaac]

Pretty much everyone goes along with the guided tour of Antarctica and they don’t do their own exploration.

The US alone sends 700 people per year. You're saying all of them are not allowed to explore?

[Tunnelcat]

Oh, it's quite the tourist destination, even to the South Pole itself. So many people, so many eyes, so much poop, pee and trash to either bury or haul back. Yet another unspoiled region of the earth being soiled by humanity. And with so many people, not ONE report of an earth's edge or any barrier to travel and that includes aircraft overland flights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Antarctica

[Testiculese]

Neo, I just randomly opened this site after another long hiatus. I've been playing D2 for the last several months, going through levels every few days. Remembered the site, and started reading this shitshow for the entertainment, and saw your post. God's Will, obviously.

However, I guarantee that nothing that I've ever said about the Bible is going to be complimentary, or add any weight to your arguments.

[Darth Wang]

Neo, I just randomly opened this site after another long hiatus. I've been playing D2 for the last several months, going through levels every few days. Remembered the site, and started reading this shitshow for the entertainment, and saw your post. God's Will, obviously.

However, I guarantee that nothing that I've ever said about the Bible is going to be complimentary, or add any weight to your arguments.

While he is correct that the Bible never says that the Earth is round, it never says that it's flat either. And historically, most Christians, even in the first few centuries AD, never believed it was flat. So you can't really blame the Bible for this particular lunacy. What's ironic is that the modern flat Earth movement was started by a guy named Dubay, who is staunchly anti-Christian.

[Neo]

That's not true. I've seen Bible verses support flat earth, like in Genesis, Job, etc. Genesis says the earth and the water existed first before God created anything else. I think it's Job that says the Lord stretched out the sky which is strong, like a molten looking glass. There are no bible verses that support heliocentricity.

Testiculese, I think you said the Bible says the earth is flat but I can't prove it. The thread is gone.

[Tebo]

Heliocentrism only really got prominent after the bible was written so I would not expect it there. After all, convincingly showing that it fits better than geocentrism takes a lot of leg work without modern technology. I'd think geocentrism with a round earth fits the movement of the stars, sun and moon okayish so you'd have to make sense of the motion of the planets and find a better mathematical model for them instead and then convince people it is better.

Flat earth on the other hand fails to make sense of the movement of the stars in a very on the nose way. If you look at them from different latitudes that is. I expect any society with a bunch of people obsessing over the night sky and some long range north/south trade would have people who realize it. Without artificial lighting and with the stars serving to tell time at night most societies would have the former. I'm curious where you think the following is wrong Neo:

1. The angular distances between individual stars stay practically the same no matter where we look at them from and no matter where they are in their rotation.
2. The point the stars rotate around changes in elevation depending on how far north/south we are.

Point 1 means we are pretty much exactly on the axis of their rotation, or of course we are doing the rotating, otherwise stars would appear to move apart from each other as they rotate to the closer side and then move closer together again as they rotate away. Any travel we do on earth is not enough to make an observable change to this, so the stars must be very far away compared to how far we travel. Atmospheric distortion is also out as a significant factor: It might lead to observation 1 not exactly holding near the horizon under some conditions, but to affect the conclusion it would have to compensate exactly the distortion expected from an off-center rotation throughout the whole sky and from all points of observation, which is ridiculous.

Since we are effectively on the axis of rotation, point 2 is only possible if the surface of the earth is at a different angle to the axis of rotation of the stars in different locations, which means it is not flat.

[Darth Wang]

That's not true. I've seen Bible verses support flat earth, like in Genesis, Job, etc. Genesis says the earth and the water existed first before God created anything else. I think it's Job that says the Lord stretched out the sky which is strong, like a molten looking glass. There no bible verses that support heliocentricity.

None of those verses say anything about it being flat. You're simply choosing the interpretations that you want and ignoring all others.

[Neo]

Tebo

1) The angles/distances don't stay the same on a flat earth.
2) There is no rotation so it depends on vanishing points and atmospheric refraction. Don't rule it out because on some days in some places the sun looks like it's getting smaller before it sets. Globe earth seems to be a viable model because it seems to work at first, also people are lacking information on any other model because we don't hear it in school. I hope nobody tries to tell me we do because I remember my school curriculum and compared that to the answers I found about flat earth.

That's not true. I've seen Bible verses support flat earth, like in Genesis, Job, etc. Genesis says the earth and the water existed first before God created anything else. I think it's Job that says the Lord stretched out the sky which is strong, like a molten looking glass. There no bible verses that support heliocentricity.

None of those verses say anything about it being flat. You're simply choosing the interpretations that you want and ignoring all others.

I don't do things like that. >_> I looked at geocentricity and flat earth makes more sense, for example, a massive sun doesn't have to circle a small, ball earth That's a lot of force required unless you're thinking of it falling down a smooth hypersurface like in relativity. Also there's no firmament in heliocentricity or geocentricity unless you think it's not literal like many people like to do.

[vision]

1) The angles/distances don't stay the same on a flat earth.
2) There is no rotation so it depends on vanishing points and atmospheric refraction.

Where is the math that shows this? If what you say is true, then you can make consistent predictions about our environment.

Globe earth seems to be a viable model because it seems to work at first...

At first, and always, because the model allows us to make accurate predictions that are proven true time and time again. To me it doesn't matter if the world is flat or round, what does matter is that we have useful models of the world. You have yet to provide any useful information, all you've done is defer to some conspiracies about why you can't show us a mathematical model of the world. Pages and pages of nonsense from you. Tell us when the next solar eclipse will happen and show the math using your flat Earth model.

[Tebo]

I think we may be talking past each other here Neo, since you are saying there is no rotation. The stars appear to do about one rotation every day. Here's a time lapse video to show what I mean:


Are you saying the earth is not rotating but the stars are or that such videos are fake? I can't see how you would attribute all that apparent rotation to vanishing points and refraction. What is responsible for the movement here on a flat earth?

Anyway, it appears we have something here that anyone can test relatively easily, no? The globe earth with distant stars model says any pair of stars should appear at the same angle from each other, no matter where we look from and when. You say that's not the case on flat earth.
There are apps and websites predicting the exact places where what celestial body should appear when, so anyone can check whether those predictions meet the condition above and whether they predict the right thing for their location.
In both cases we should probably not consider stars very close to the horizon due to potential atmospheric distortion. There is also a bit of optical illusion with how big things appear near the horizon, but in any case one could measure with say a sextant instead of eyeballing.

[Neo]

This is why I no longer listen to you, vision:

1) The angles/distances don't stay the same on a flat earth.
2) There is no rotation so it depends on vanishing points and atmospheric refraction.

Where is the math that shows this? If what you say is true, then you can make consistent predictions about our environment.

It should be readily apparent, unless you don't know much math, or if you're lying about what you believe in.

Globe earth seems to be a viable model because it seems to work at first...

At first, and always, because the model allows us to make accurate predictions that are proven true time and time again. To me it doesn't matter if the world is flat or round, what does matter is that we have useful models of the world. You have yet to provide any useful information, all you've done is defer to some conspiracies about why you can't show us a mathematical model of the world. Pages and pages of nonsense from you. Tell us when the next solar eclipse will happen and show the math using your flat Earth model.

A "flat, non-rotating earth," as NASA calls it, tells you the same thing. Before, people would just "shut up and calculate" and they didn't consider the earth to be a sphere or a spheroid, but they knew where the stars are.

Everyone sees their own sky. Stars don't move through the sky. Why would they? Only planets move, and they aren't even real. There's nothing in the Bible that says God created planets. Also, this isn't a heaven or hell issue. I said that already so you don't have to care, so don't act like you need to tell me that it doesn't matter.

[TigerRaptor]

Everything in the universe is in motion dummy.

[Neo]

[Tebo]

Everyone sees their own sky. Stars don't move through the sky. Why would they? Only planets move, and they aren't even real. There's nothing in the Bible that says God created planets. Also, this isn't a heaven or hell issue. I said that already so you don't have to care, so don't act like you need to tell me that it doesn't matter.

Uh yeah, that whole stars not moving in the sky thing you might want to check next time you have a clear night sky. If I see they don't over here I'll sure let you know about my worldview having collapsed...

Everything in the universe is in motion dummy.

Not true, power ups don't move! How would anyone know what to pick up and what to shoot otherwise?

[Neo]

Please don't talk to or about me like I'm stupid. It's childish. One of the things I wanted to point out is how mad people get over flat earth. If it's so false, why get mad about it and call people names?

[TigerRaptor]

So when are you going to drop this whole charade?

[Top Gun]

Please don't talk to or about me like I'm stupid. It's childish. One of the things I wanted to point out is how mad people get over flat earth. If it's so false, why get mad about it and call people names?

We get mad because idiots are still spouting nonsense that was disproven literally 2500 years ago.

[Isaac]

Please don't talk to or about me like I'm stupid. It's childish. One of the things I wanted to point out is how mad people get over flat earth. If it's so false, why get mad about it and call people names?

Why did you get mad here and run away?

https://descentbb.net/viewtopic.php?p=396663#p396663

[Neo]

I'll check out the stars soon... just need a clear sky :3

Please don't talk to or about me like I'm stupid. It's childish. One of the things I wanted to point out is how mad people get over flat earth. If it's so false, why get mad about it and call people names?

We get mad because idiots are still spouting nonsense that was disproven literally 2500 years ago.

That's my point. There's nothing to get mad about if idiots are spouting nonsense because that's what so-called idiots do, so you should be calm or just laughing.

[Tebo]

Sorry for offending you Neo. I don't think you are stupid although I do think you're dead wrong on this. Plenty of otherwise smart people hold some ridiculous believes so who am I to judge?

I only jumped into this thread because I figured the first clear indication of a round earth people must have gotten was from the stars (discovering celestial navigation) rather than starting at ships disappearing on the horizon, considered how that would actually work, thought it was underappreciated nowadays, and wondered what you would make of it.

I did not want to let the idea of the stars not rotating get buried, because it does run totally counter to the underlying principle, should be very easy to check and if true would indeed totally destroy the current scientific understanding. That does not usually happen so I may have been a bit flippant
Anyway, I don't think I ever specifically checked either. Next time I have a clear night sky I'll have to see how well Microsoft Flight Simulator matches up with it.

[Neo]

Thanks for your input, Tebo. I tried just now but I think it's too cloudy and I can't see the stars. There's also "light pollution" from the street lamps. :/ I'll try again another day or wait until I move at the end of the year.

I think I remember Orion staying above my horizon near where I used to live, but I can't remember anymore. So I'll need to do some observation.

[Neo]

I was able to see one star near my house and I know where it was over the horizon so we'll see if it moves around 6:00 in the morning.