Search results

I'm biased?! Okay Dave, let's see if this rolls off your back. You are now a proud member of my ignore list. If it does not embarrass you to be in company with some of the abject lunatics on that list, nothing will. The truly sad thing is that I know as I am typing this that it will not...

Anyone else would earn a place on my ignore list for such a comment. It's infuriating STUPIDITY!

And then it goes on to crush the flat Earth moronic model into dust with argument after argument that you didn't even bother to listen too much less respond too. David, the effect this debate has had on your reputation among people who otherwise agree with you doctrinally and who used to...

Yeah, and if He looked down on a sphere, He'd see a circle just like we do when we look at soccer balls that we've created. This is because spheres and circles are both round. In fact, a sphere is nothing at all other than a three dimensional circle. You can't possibly believe that this concept...

The following two videos present some of the best arguments I've seen. Ignore his insults and pay close attention to the actual arguments... https://youtu.be/JgY8zNZ35uw https://youtu.be/TeMooNFtFJk These videos also present excellent arguments... https://youtu.be/W9ksbh88OJs...

The lake analogy doesn't work because a lake is a dynamic system by definition. The only way it could work is if you were suggesting that the entire like as a whole was moving from one place to another (like from Oklahoma to Texas or something). But to answer your question directly. It refutes...

There are about 5 million or so videos that have been linked to in this thread so I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure I made that comment about a gif that showed the relative sizes of major objects in the solar system. All of which were presented as spheres or almost spheres.

That is a really well made graphic video! I like it.

Listen to what you just said. "Relativity states, for example, what is moving to one person is stationary/not moving to someone else." "...something cannot be both moving and not moving at the same time in the same place to all who are present at the same place at the same time." Read what...

Another video for me to watch and debunk without any response from you except for yet another asinine video. I am finished watching your videos until you start debating this topic.

You think the Moon goes around the Earth once a day! Or is it the entire universe the does that and the Moon independently goes a bit further than once around the Earth per day? No need to answer, the questions answer themselves and are rhetorical.

It just isn't so. You just simply don't know what you're talking about. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE M-M experiment showed! OMG! Please read a history book! The Michealson-Morley experiment demonstrated that there was no aether! Einstein's work is PREDICATED upon those experimental results, not...

Here's the same image after stacking and processing the image. It's a jpg file so the image isn't as good as the original but still not bad for a first try.

Because there surely isn't any better place on TOL to post this, here's the first image of the Moon that I've shot through my new (new to me) 8" Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope. This is without even having a tripod, by the way. All I've got is the Alt-Az. mount mounted on a piece of particle board...

No one here, least of all me, has taken anything carte blanche. There are two things that have been proven on this thread. 1. The Earth is round. 2. You do not know ANYTHING about science or rational thought.

He does NOT care! He can read it 7000 times and it won't matter because he has taken leave of his senses.

David, this thread has proven over and over again the FACT that the Earth is round. You HAVE ignored every argument. You assume anything that might disprove this stupidity is faked or a lie because you can't reproduce it yourself. That is the opposite of rational, it is stupidity.

Any video or other images I take will certainly be posted here! :up:

As if it's somehow a matter of opinion. Level is perpendicular to the pull of gravity, period. EVERY LEVEL YOU HAVE EVER USED OR SEEN ANYONE ELSE USE IS BASED ENTIRELY ON THIS SINGULAR PRINCIPLE!!!! It can if by ascending you mean increasing your distance away from mean sea level which curves...

Level DOES NOT mean "not curved"! It means perpendicular to the pull of gravity. Every level you've ever used works on that single principle. If there is a related term that you could be accurately used to mean "not curved" it would be the word "true". Although that may not always be the case...