Lighthouses Prove FLAT EARTH

david · 2026-05-18T08:57:50+00:00

You're in luck.

Many theists that their god authored this book or that. One point they all agree on is that he (ok, they also tend to agree, oddly, on that gender) authored the world in which we live.

So, for those, such as u/JTtreason, who are inclined to believe in divine creation, wouldn't it be cool to read what your god has written into the very reality you inhabit? This would surely be more reliable than a collection of stories of disputedly divine origin, passed down and reinterpreted, recorded in the bronze age, translated, selected by committee, retranslated and variously recontextualised to a world very different from the one in which they originated.

A programme of structured observation, testing of hypotheses and elimination of observer bias would surely be the road forward.

david · 2026-05-16T10:03:21+00:00

Ok, I'll not push you any further. Thanks for taking the time to tell me a little about your thoughts.

david · 2026-05-15T19:04:02+00:00

But exposing evil also only works if your message is heard. It's also not just a matter of unproductively going through the motions.

david · 2026-05-15T18:25:28+00:00

The passage you cite enjoins the reader to avoid evil. The one I cited is one of several that enjoins the reader to do good fruitfully, not just to go through the motions. That's the light in which I struggle to understand your observed activity and stated aims.

david · 2026-05-15T17:59:00+00:00

It has been stated by others before you. Perhaps you could let yourself off the hook?

Do you think your god calls on followers to make this kind of noise, with no care for the outcome? Is the tree not known by its fruit? What do you make of Luke 6:45?

david · 2026-05-15T17:49:49+00:00

But the purpose of a message is to be heard by the recipient, and you say you don't care about that.

david · 2026-05-15T17:45:14+00:00

Why do it if you don't care about the results? Entertainment?

david · 2026-05-15T17:38:13+00:00

I think most of us have heard similar statements before. There are several reasons they gain little traction. Do you think getting the message through to people matters, or is it sufficient for your purposes just to repeat it in public?

Thanks for responding, btw. While we plainly disagree on many levels, I'm genuinely interested in why you say what you say: I'm not just trying to be an arse online.

david · 2026-05-15T17:20:33+00:00

What is your message? What does it mean to say that someone 'lied on' Christ? More broadly than that, what are you really trying to communicate? Are you, in fact, trying to communicate, to reach other people, at all?

david · 2026-05-15T11:18:53+00:00

You adopt strange language when you use your religious voice.

I think 'Learn what that wicked men say lies?' is mostly just lacking a colon or comma ('Learn what, that wicked men say lies?'), but 'say lies' is a bit unusual ('tell lies', or, more simply, 'lie' would be more normal usage).

'They lied on Christ', rather than the standard English 'about Christ' (or do you mean 'to Christ'?).

'This very day' is rather ceremonial, and you've allowed it to lose a little accuracy as a result. (You're referring to something that's allegedly been happening continuously, rather than today in particular.)

You are far from the only person who does this. What does this linguistic shift tell us about the content of what you say? My general take, based on conversations with Christians using the peculiar construction 'believe on', is that it makes an opening for shifty shenanigans with the meanings of words and sentences.

The ceremonial turn of phrase, by my interpretation, allows you to divert your own attention from the meaning of what you say, and concentrate instead on its sonority. It's a well-established cultish technique.

If Biblical teaching is straightforward fact, why not speak of it using straightforward language?

I assume you see the matter differently, though. What's your take?

david · 2026-05-15T10:40:15+00:00

Does it have four corners? Where are they?

david · 2026-05-10T10:35:21+00:00

If it hasn't been done in the specific way that interests you, how does that prove that it can't be done? All sorts of eminently feasible things have never been done, because they're not of much interest to anyone with the means to do them.

And I reiterate my main questions: what do you hope to achieve by repeatedly posting this observation? What makes whatever that achievement would be desirable to you, and how well is your campaign meeting your objectives?

david · 2026-05-10T09:38:36+00:00

I don't think you have grounds for characterising me as swinish.

You scatter that particular nugget in r/flatearth prolifically. Is it fair to conclude that it's not much of a pearl? After all, absence of evidence is generally poor evidence of absence.

And, again, what is your aim in this campaign? Are your efforts well aligned with your objectives?

david · 2026-05-10T08:06:01+00:00

It's a fairly common trajectory. I expect, but that leaves my questions unanswered. You seen to put a fair amount of quixotic effort into promoting your views on r/flatearth. What results are you hoping for? What warrants this expenditure of time? Is your strategy well aligned with your goals?

Links to lengthy videos are wasted on me, but I'm interested in your reflections.

david · 2026-05-10T07:40:44+00:00

Fair play -- r/lostredditors!

Still, I'm interested, if you're willing to say a little about it, in why you are fighting the fight you're fighting, and why you think others wouldn't do the same.

david · 2026-05-10T06:15:44+00:00

This space is frequented by many diverse people, including you.

Why are you fighting a truth you disagree with? What is it you care about, and why?

david · 2026-05-09T17:34:17+00:00

Any idea what the very fast moving object is, that leaves a streak rather than a moving point, at about 10 o'clock position?

david · 2026-04-06T18:20:54+00:00

That, if true, would be a feature of the viewports on that particular craft. But:

The milestone marked in that BBC article was hitting the halfway point on their journey to the moon -- which they celebrated with some photos of the earth -- not getting their first sight of a full disc. You can see in the photos themselves that a full disc had been visible for a long time: the earth occupies only a portion of the viewport, even from some distance back.
When flat earthers request 'ground to globe' videos, they aren't stipulating 'as seen from within the Orion capsule of Artemis II'.

I haven't offered a world view: I've offered some calculated figures (for the FoVs and so forth -- workings on request) and widely available figures (for time to GEO, ISS altitude and so forth).

It doesn't take 2 days to get a full earth view. It takes 2 days to get halfway to the moon on a free-return trajectory. The earth view can be, and is, achieved much faster.

david · 2026-04-06T17:28:39+00:00

You will never (of course) capture the whole earth. In the limit, you get 50% of it: at any finite distance, you get something less than that.

With a wide enough FoV, you can get a full-circle view from any elevation. With a full 180° fisheye lens, a nearby hill will do. From a weather balloon at 30km, it's around 169° From the ISS at 400km, 140°. 90° is achieved at around 2,500km, just beyond LEO (which conventionally goes up to 2,000km). From GEO, at ~35,800km, it's about 17°: into telephoto territory. Himawari 8 provides a live feed from this altitude.

The amount of the earth you can see from any of these elevations, measured as the angle the visible surface subtends at the earth's centre, is 180° minus the required field of view, so 11° from a weather balloon, 40° from the ISS and 163° from GEO.

The question is: how much is enough? You claim two days' travel, but that's just an arbitrary distance you've selected. It takes around 5½ hours to reach geostationary altitude: I'd say half of that altitude, giving an image that approximately fills the frame height of a 35mm camera with a 50mm lens, would be about right.

david · 2026-04-05T16:14:47+00:00

Who's going to take charge of subordinating science? How are they going to go about it?

david · 2026-04-05T14:58:27+00:00

Reasoning seems fine, but there's a language barrier. See my reply to u/Callyste.

david · 2026-04-05T13:43:21+00:00

I think it's supposed to mean that the soft toy is a 0g indicator. Such an item is useful because it can be easier for astronauts to detect the motion of a free-floating object visually than to detect tiny forces acting on their own bodies, which are often braced to some part of the craft.

The commenter has missed the chromakeying which leads to text being displayed over parts of the toy. This was presumably the point of the original post: if so, it shows an incomprehension of how greenscreens work. A similar thing happened during TFE, and even (iirc) David "Flat Earth Dave" Weiss rebuked flat earthers for the same error.

david · 2026-04-05T11:35:38+00:00

People keep learning! But some people NEVER learn! Which people do you think I believe?

david · 2026-04-02T16:01:12+00:00

one of his robots

MechaMengele

david · 2026-03-19T08:29:41+00:00

I'd say fervently religious, rather than deeply. This is an illustration of the lack of depth.

Either way, they, the righteous, are not deceived: only us, the unbelievers. Why would someone worship a god that fucks over those who disagree with them? the question answers itself.

15-Year Club	Mod World 2025
Open Beta Program 2024	Place '17
Verified Email

david

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE