but space shuttles are monstrously expensive

it would be a net loss to do so

@RidleyChozo if you claim I'm emotionally programmed, then prove they are alive

@RidleyChozo Source: Dude, Trust me

all I hear is a lot of assertions...

@RidleyChozo that's a nice way of saying "I don't need evidence"

Citations? Cause those pics can literally be of some random-ass lookalikes

with their names tacked on by some conspiracy theorist

I'm pretty sure that the CIA didn't come up with that

@RidleyChozo so show me these aren't some random lookalikes that a conspiracy theorist put the same names onto?

"do your own research" is not an argument

@RidleyChozo I wouldn't call that post a fact

like I said, the validity of it is still highly questionable

I mean, even if I did concede that challenger was fake

it still doesn't prove the earth is flat

even though faking the challenger would make positively no sense

@Derek Nelson just because you can't see the curve with the naked eye, does not mean it's not curved

"but flat earthers be like, it looks flat so it MUST be flat"

you can't observe it with your naked eye, Derek

you can observe it, just not with simple human perception

well, you can measure the distance, and even observe other things as they go into the distance

such as the boat, sinking bottom first as it goes over the horizon

I like how that photo literally shows the boat sinking bottom first

nice one, derek

and the horizon line is wrong

yes. the horizon line should rest on top of the water

not in the air

@Derek Nelson that mountain is high enough to beat the curve to still see it. In that photo, I can literally see the bottom disappearing

that last picture makes no sense

the sun sets, so therefore it would wink lower like on the curved surface segment

but the curve is so large, you would not be able to perceive it in the method described in this photo

basically your argument is "It looks flat, so it must be flat"

which is inherently anti-intellectual

it looks flat because the earth is very large, and you cannot perceive it on your own

No, Logos, you're strawmanning me

Your argument is "It LOOKS flat, so it must be flat"

which was the belief humans held for thousands of years

you mean it's perceptively flat

not observably flat

That's not an argument from incredulity, please go look up what that means

yeah and your mind tells you it's flat, right?

you're backing yourself into the exact same trap you're setting for me

right.

"it LOOKS flat, therefore it MUST be flat"

so you're basing your beliefs on your own perceptions

and pre-suppositions

Ah, so therefore, nothing truly exists

Atoms do not exist because you never experience them?

Yes it is

you argued that "It's what I perceive, therefore it's true"

"I do not perceive or experience the curve, therefore the curve does not exist"

yes you did

"My exact experience tells me it's flat
My mind agrees with my senses"

you said it, not me

so you're basing your reality only on what you can experience and perceive

by your own logic, things you do not experience, cannot exist.

@RidleyChozo You are making an argument from ignorance, and completely basing your belief system on your perceptions.

You say "observably flat does not mean flat", yet that's exactly what you're arguing.

I already did admit that

I said it looks like it's flat because the curve is beyond our perception

or our experience

the curve does not "begin" anywhere, it's a circular constant

so you ARE basing reality only on your experiences

good, now we're getting somewhere

I'm not. I cannot perceive the curve with my naked eyes, yet it exists.

Atoms exist, even though I do not experience them

I do know it, actually

we have mathematics for that

and it reflects our reality

and even basic phenomena in nature explains a round earth

Math is a tool we use to reflect reality

Math is a tool we use to reflect it

2 + 2 does not equal 5

Yes, I'm agreeing that it's a tool

but it's a tool we uses to reflect reality

9.8 m/s, squared... because that's what we observe

we don't just make it up as we go along

so making the argument that math proves nothing because it's a "tool" is nonsensical

yes, you do

math is founded in reality

math is founded in reality

no I can't

I cannot divide by zero

I cannot say 2 + 2 = 5

no i can't

2 + 2 = 5 is mathematically incorrect

no it's not

for an example, architects use math to design buildings

if they changed the properties of math on a whim, then the building would turn out very different

you can't make the argument that math can be changed on a whim due to being a human construct

Video games are codes

mhm

you can write different codes sure

but for that particular coding language, you cannot just decide that while = else

that's completely nonsense

while cannot equal else in coding

nice FECORE laser experiment Logos

never read that one before

hasn't been peer-reviewed yet