Are there any Flat Earth believers here?

[Subduction Zone]

When did I edit my post? LYING again lmfao.

You QUOTED me saying “it should form an arc, but DOES NOT”.

Then you said that I claimed an arc exists.

Did you forget that I have the screenshots? Why do you keep lying? Is it that important to you? You can’t just admit that you messed up?

Lmfao

As soon as you made a fatal error there was no point in moving on.

Try again.

 

[Tazarah]

But you did. You are merely unable to reason logically. You keep forgetting that the Earth is round so that sort of error on your part is understandable.

I said an arc does not exist.

Then you said that I said an arc exists.

 

[Tazarah]

As soon as you made a fatal error there was no point in moving on.

Try again.

When did I say “an arc exists”?????

Million dollar question. When did I make that statement?

 

[Tazarah]

When did I say “an arc exists”?????

Million dollar question. When did I make that statement?

I said an arc should exist but does not.

You keep lying and saying that I said an arc DOES exist, when there is no evidence of me ever saying such a thing. It’s actually the exact opposite, and you quoted it yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said an arc should exist but does not.

You keep lying and saying that I said an arc DOES exist, when there is no evidence of me ever saying such a thing. It’s actually the exact opposite, and you quoted it yourself.

You did. If you could reason logically you could see that is exactly what you claimed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When did I say “an arc exists”?????

Million dollar question. When did I make that statement?

So many times it is hard to keep track. You keep forgetting that you had a qualifier in those posts. You would include the phrase "If the Earth is round". The Earth is round. That means we follow the rest of your conditional statement. Which was that "the railway line should have an arc" (that of course was an incredibly wrong statement on your part).

In your posts far too often what you mean to say does not match what you actually say.

 

[Tazarah]

So many times it is hard to keep track. You keep forgetting that you had a qualifier in those posts. You would include the phrase "If the Earth is round". The Earth is round. That means we follow the rest of your conditional statement. Which was that "the railway line should have an arc" (that of course was an incredibly wrong statement on your part).

In your posts far too often what you mean to say does not match what you actually say.

Regardless of how you feel about the shape of the earth, in the experiment that was done with the railway, the center between the two points did NOT form an arc.

Maybe the people who did experiment with the measurements were wrong, or maybe they were right and the earth is flat.

Regardless, either way — NO arc was formed on the railway between the two points.

And that is exactly what I have been saying.

Now you look even more stupid for trying to twist my words around in an attempt to save yourself from looking like an idiot.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Regardless of how you feel about the shape of the earth, in the experiment that was done with the railway, the center between the two points did NOT form an arc.

Maybe the people who did experiment with the measurements were wrong, or maybe they were right and the earth is flat.

Regardless, either way — NO arc was formed on the railway between the two points.

And that is exactly what I have been saying.

Now you look even more stupid for trying to twist my words around in an attempt to save yourself from looking like an idiot.

Here is the problem, you are the one that "feels" I am the one that knows. Your "experiment" is flawed because the prediction does not match what we would expect to see with a global Earth.

Once again, the incorrect application of a formula leads to a wrong conclusion. Until you learn the basics of science and math you will probably be wrong in every scientific argument that you enter.

 

[Tazarah]

Here is the problem, you are the one that "feels" I am the one that knows. Your "experiment" is flawed because the prediction does not match what we would expect to see with a global Earth.

Once again, the incorrect application of a formula leads to a wrong conclusion. Until you learn the basics of science and math you will probably be wrong in every scientific argument that you enter.

What does any of that have to do with the fact that I NEVER said that an arc exists?

You try so hard to portray yourself as some intelligent, wise, all-knowing scholar, but all you have done is make a fool of yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What does any of that have to do with the fact that I NEVER said that an arc exists?

You try so hard to portray yourself as some intelligent, wise, all-knowing scholar, but all you have done is make a fool of yourself.

But you did. You said, and I am paraphrasing a little bit here 'If the globe is round we should see an arc". News flash: The globe is round. That means that you predicted that an arc would be found. It does not matter that you contradicted yourself in the next sentence. Once again I understand both what you write and what you mean to write.

 

[Tazarah]

But you did. You said, and I am paraphrasing a little bit here 'If the globe is round we should see an arc". News flash: The globe is round. That means that you predicted that an arc would be found. It does not matter that you contradicted yourself in the next sentence. Once again I understand both what you write and what you mean to write.

Like I said — regardless of the shape of the earth, the experiment concluded that an arc did not exist.

Second of all, you said that I CLAIMED that an arc exists.

What I wrote is that an arc does not exist.

You can’t say that I claimed that an arc exists when I clearly said that an arc does not exist.

Because at the end of the day — an arc DOES NOT exist, and that’s exactly what I said.

You don’t get to change the rules of language/conversation and decide what means what.

Only a fool who is afraid of admitting to his mistake would do that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like I said — regardless of the shape of the earth, the experiment concluded that an arc did not exist.

Right, because it was worthless. And you don't get to ignore the actual shape of the Earth.

Second of all, you said that I CLAIMED that an arc exists.

Yes, because you had a qualifier in that post. Did you forget that already?

What I wrote is that an arc does not exist.

Only after you said that there would be one.

You can’t say that I claimed that an arc exists when I clearly said that an arc does not exist.

Wrong, you once again forgot that you had a qualifier in that post.

Because at the end of the day — an arc DOES NOT exist, and that’s exactly what I said.

Yes, a rare acknowledgement of reality on your part. But you still said that there would be an arc first.

You don’t get to change the rules of language/conversation and decide what means what.

I am not chainging the rules of language or conversation. Did you or did you not say "if the Earth is round"" or words to that effect?

Only a fool who is afraid of admitting to his mistake would do that.

So you are calling yourself a fool?

 

[Tazarah]

Right, because it was worthless. And you don't get to ignore the actual shape of the Earth.



Yes, because you had a qualifier in that post. Did you forget that already?



Only after you said that there would be one.



Wrong, you once again forgot that you had a qualifier in that post.



Yes, a rare acknowledgement of reality on your part. But you still said that there would be an arc first.



I am not chainging the rules of language or conversation. Did you or did you not say "if the Earth is round"" or words to that effect?




So you are calling yourself a fool?

My exact words were:

“if the earth were round, then at a certain point the railway should form an arc reaching a certain height — which it does not.”

^ at which point do I make a claim stating that there is an arc between the two points?

 

[Tazarah]

Right, because it was worthless. And you don't get to ignore the actual shape of the Earth.



Yes, because you had a qualifier in that post. Did you forget that already?



Only after you said that there would be one.



Wrong, you once again forgot that you had a qualifier in that post.



Yes, a rare acknowledgement of reality on your part. But you still said that there would be an arc first.



I am not chainging the rules of language or conversation. Did you or did you not say "if the Earth is round"" or words to that effect?




So you are calling yourself a fool?

So if I say:

“If the earth were round, then my car should taste like jello — but it doesn’t.”

Round earth or not — ^ does that mean I am claiming that my car tastes like jello?

Lmfao, grow up dude. You messed up, and it’s okay.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My exact words were:

“if the earth were round, then at a certain point the railway should form an arc reaching a certain height — which it does not.”

at which point do I make a claim stating that there is an arc between the two points?

You put the wrong part in bold. But I fixed it for you. In a conversation you cannot pretend that an earlier part did not exist. When you said that you said that an arc should form.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So if I say:

“If the earth were round, then my car should taste like jello — but it doesn’t.”

Round earth or not — ^ does that mean I am claiming that my car tastes like jello?

Lmfao, grow up dude. You messed up, and it’s okay.

No, it is not "round earth or not". I never said nor implied that. The fact is that the Earth is round. If it was a case of "not" you might be right. But we know that is not the case. Again your ability to reason logically is lacking. That you had to try to add something shows that I did not mess up.

 

[Tazarah]

You put the wrong part in bold. But I fixed it for you. In a conversation you cannot pretend that an earlier part did not exist. When you said that you said that an arc should form.

OK, I said that an arc should form.

And okay, the earth is round.

At the end of the day, an arc DID NOT FORM, and I did not say that an arc formed.

Regardless, an arc did not form, nor did I say that one did.

So now what’s your excuse?

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, I said that an arc should form.

And okay, the earth is round.

At the end of the day, an arc DID NOT FORM, and I did not say that an arc formed.

Now you just contradicted yourself.

Regardless, an arc did not form, nor did I say that one did.

So now what’s your excuse?

Yes, you did. You can't seem to put that first sentence together even with the bolding.

An "if then" statement is one statement when the conditions of the "if" are true. Take out the "if and the remove the "then' and we have:

" at a certain point the railway should form an arc reaching a certain height"

 

[Tazarah]

Now you just contradicted yourself.



Yes, you did. You can't seem to put that first sentence together even with the bolding.

An "if then" statement is one statement when the conditions of the "if" are true. Take out the "if and the remove the "then' and we have:

" at a certain point the railway should form an arc reaching a certain height"

I did not contradict myself, I am stating facts.

I agree with you — the earth is round.

But, no arc was formed, nor did I say that one was formed.

So if I say:

“If the sun rises in the east, then Michael Jackson is still alive and has skin darker than Shaquille O’Neal.”

^ then that obviously means that Michael Jackson is still alive and darker than Shaq, according to you.

Right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did not contradict myself, I am stating facts.

I agree with you — the earth is round.

But, no arc was formed, nor did I say that one was formed.

So if I say:

“If the sun rises in the east, then Michael Jackson is still alive and has skin darker than Shaquille O’Neal.”

^ then that obviously means that Michael Jackson is still alive and darker than Shaq, according to you.

Right?

You contradicted yourself. It is rather basic logic. If you do not understand you should ask questions.

Once again you predicted that an arc should form (and you have yet to admit that was a foolish prediction regardless of model) You did not understand how a globe works. You have shown that many times with your water on the bottom of the Earth.





And don't try to use logic. You do not know how it works. Just give up.

Oh what the heck, no, that is not "according to me" That would be according to you. Once again you do not understand logic. You were the one that put a true conditional there which means that that is your statement, not mine. Just as you put a conditional in your statement about an arc, which means you said that there would be one. Not me.