larsenb wrote: ↑November 26th, 2022, 11:24 pmAllison, see if you can derive a predictive theory to undergird the flat-earth 'hypothesis'. You can't. That is all one needs to know about flat earth.Allison wrote: ↑November 26th, 2022, 5:33 pmI forgot, Larsen, do you also believe in the moon landings? I think you do, right?larsenb wrote: ↑November 26th, 2022, 4:52 pmHuh??! Amazing assertions. Wow!harakim wrote: ↑November 26th, 2022, 4:00 pm . . . . . . And that's the issue with flat earth debunkers. They are just as bad as the flat earthers. . . . . . I have never seen a round earther do an experiment to prove the earth is round. I have seen them try and fail, though. . . . . . But one thing is for sure: round earthers almost always demand that you accept their view, even though they cannot back it up with facts, . . . . .
Right here on this forum, I've seen many intelligent posters here that basically prove a round earth, and have never seen them rebutted by so-called flat-earthers.
The FACT remains, flat-earth proponents have no predictive theory for their model. The round-earth model does, and the model is used in multiple, multiple ways in our current reality that almost everybody relies on.
The globe model is under constant revision in order to explain away failures as they become exposed by honest inquiry. And that’s with NASA’s $60 million per day budget.
What is the latest on space? Is there, after all, not the vacuum we’ve been told is out there?
To be correct, it’s a lack of curvature hypothesis, that’s all. The fact that you can’t show the requisite curve doesn’t mean that I owe you all of the answers about what IS.
Really, this is like arguing that we must have gone to the moon if I cannot tell you where the fake moon landings were filmed. I don’t have to know that in order to know the moon landings were a ridiculous hoax.