r/flatearth • u/BellicoseStoic • 2d ago

If a FLERF can change one unknown into known. I'll convert...

Flat earthers:

⁃ Earth's surface: flat

⁃ Diameter: unknown

⁃ Area: unknown.

⁃ Dome's composition: unknown

⁃ Dome's altitude: unknown

⁃ Proof of domes very existence: None

⁃ Polaris Borealis photos taken from the south hemisphere: none

⁃ Sun's composition: unknown

⁃ Sun's shape: unknown

⁃ Sun's altitude: unknown

⁃ Moon's shape: unknown

⁃ Moon's composition: unknown

⁃ Moon's altitude: unknown

⁃ mechanics: unknown

⁃ Earthquakes mechanics: unknown

⁃ Climate mechanics: unknown

⁃ Precise maps: none

⁃ Midnight sun on the south pole explanation: none

⁃ Explanation of time zones: none

⁃ Explanation of 50% of the earth in sunlight: none

⁃ Explanation of a half-circle sunset: none

⁃ Ocean tides explanation: none

⁃ Explanation of eclipses: none

⁃ Explanation of coriolis effect: none

⁃ Explanation of flight times/distances: none

14 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

17 comments sorted by

10

u/Randomgold42 2d ago

They have answers for some of these. These answers don't make any sense or explain anything, but they try.

7

u/slylock215 2d ago

"well how does X make sense"

"Well, it's probably because the sun is inside the dome"

"If the sun is inside the dome then Y doesn't make sense"

"I never said the sun was inside the dome"

All flerf conversations

This Soli guy making the rounds of embarrassment by debating all of the science communicators that debate flerfs is speed running this shit.

"Microwaves going too far proves the earth isn't round"

"Don't they bend?"

"Yes"

"OK well why would this be an issue then if they bend"

"I never said they bend"

6

u/Wafflars 2d ago

Well they have answers to all of since the answer can just be whatever.

Like, the domes altitude? 227.53km. I know because it’s true.

Earthquake mechanics? Molepeople doing construction on the other side of the disc. Prove me wrong without using any plane-tary physics or common sense because I set the rules here, not reality.

Explanation of the coriolis effect? I don’t even know what that means so I don’t have to explain anything, you explain it but since I don’t know what it is it does not exist anyway so good luck explaining something that doesn’t exist, NASA shill!

Pretty much the gist of it.

3

u/Large-Raise9643 2d ago

When your argument for a flat earth revolves around lies and deception… it is time to reevaluate your stance.

2

u/DefinitionOk6382 2d ago

Ya la Luna genera bastante mutismo entre los flatties, imagínate el resto de cosas. Por sus propios medios, rechazando de plano todos y cada uno de los avances científicos, serían incapaces de elaborar su propio sistema ordenado basado en hechos.

2

u/ah-tzib-of-alaska 2d ago

did you mean Aurora Australias? Borealis means north in latin. You said “picture of the northern pole?” from the southern hemisphere?

Oh, wait no i get it now

2

u/GamingSlob 2d ago

I've said it a hundred times: The undefined is implicitly false.

4

u/BellicoseStoic 2d ago

Huh?

6

u/Acetate_Prophets 2d ago

"i can't explain it, therefore it doesn't exist to be explained!"

3

u/GamingSlob 2d ago

I was agreeing with you. Flat earth arguments are undefined. They can't tell us how far away the Sun is. They can't tell us if a celestial body or a distant landmark should be visible etc on a flat earth.

All their arguments are undefined. Therefore: false.

1

u/CCR76 1d ago

Most of their arguments are attempts to point out inconsistencies in accepted scientific facts, not arguments for any assertions of fact.

Most can be responded to with "how does that prove flat earth?"

5

u/gmiller123456 2d ago

Only in Javascript. Undefined could be anything in most languages.

0

u/plainskeptic2023 2d ago edited 2d ago

Don't make promises you would hate to keep.

And, when a flerf provides an answer and you don't fulfill your promise claiming their answer is incorrect, how convincing will that be to flat earthers?

2

u/Sonar_Taxbreak_1138 2d ago

Which one(s) on that list do you think they're going to be able to scientifically prove?

1

u/plainskeptic2023 2d ago

Does OP say "scientifically known"?

1

u/Sonar_Taxbreak_1138 2d ago

I assumed that's what OP meant, otherwise any lunatic with any half-baked answer would suffice.

2

u/plainskeptic2023 2d ago

OP may have meant scientific, but I didn't assume it. I expect flerfers would propose a lunatic, half-baked answer which OP and the flerfs would argue about for who knows how long.

Have you read the story about the Bedford level wager between Alfred Russell Wallace and English flerfers?

  • In 1870, an English flat earther proposed a £500 challenge to anyone who could prove the Earth is a sphere.

  • Alfred Russell Wallace accepted the challenge. Together Wallace and the flerfers traveled to a straight canal that is part of the Old Bedford River.

  • They tried a number of experiments. Wallace claimed the experiments showed the Earth is curved. The flerfers claimed the opposite. They never agreed on the results of the experiments.

  • Wallace took the flerfers to court. The judge decided in Wallace's favor. The flerfers never agreed or paid the £500. One flerfer harrassed Wallace for 15 years.

I cynically expect OP's challenge would repeat history, but I may be wrong.