So a friend of mine said this to me, and I had no idea how to reply.
"If I got in an aeroplane in Amsterdam, and flew to the left (west) all the time, how do you explain that after hours of flying you end up in Amsterdam again? How can you explain that with a flat earth?"
There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?
I agree. Someone will always be able to draw a map to fit your requirements, and nobody actually tracks the path of a plane apart for pilots, which gives ample space for FEers to call fraud.So a friend of mine said this to me, and I had no idea how to reply.
"If I got in an aeroplane in Amsterdam, and flew to the left (west) all the time, how do you explain that after hours of flying you end up in Amsterdam again? How can you explain that with a flat earth?"
There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?
This is a pretty common topic around here and the FE response is typical but not too difficult to offer. Jroa is usually the first to respond to this type of question. He'll first prod with some questions to help the RE'r realize that nobody flys directly west in this manner. Jroa is aware that flights are usually done via a great circle which is a trajectory that changes over the course of a trip. This distinction is known by both FE'rs and RE'rs but RE'rs whom have not given this much thought might not be aware of this and it's a good tactic to take advantage of this fact and make your opponent look like a dimwit. Once they understand that commercial flights don't take this route then you can offer the monopole model of a FE and specify that on it, nearly the same routes are taken with the major difference being that on the monopole projection, this is a straight line route. It is a straight arc on a globe as well but more often that not great circle routes are shown on a flat projection which makes the routes appear curved.
There really isn't anywhere else for the conversation to go after that. It doesn't prove that the earth is round or flat.
I agree. Someone will always be able to draw a map to fit your requirements, and nobody actually tracks the path of a plane apart for pilots, which gives ample space for FEers to call fraud.So a friend of mine said this to me, and I had no idea how to reply.
"If I got in an aeroplane in Amsterdam, and flew to the left (west) all the time, how do you explain that after hours of flying you end up in Amsterdam again? How can you explain that with a flat earth?"
There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?
This is a pretty common topic around here and the FE response is typical but not too difficult to offer. Jroa is usually the first to respond to this type of question. He'll first prod with some questions to help the RE'r realize that nobody flys directly west in this manner. Jroa is aware that flights are usually done via a great circle which is a trajectory that changes over the course of a trip. This distinction is known by both FE'rs and RE'rs but RE'rs whom have not given this much thought might not be aware of this and it's a good tactic to take advantage of this fact and make your opponent look like a dimwit. Once they understand that commercial flights don't take this route then you can offer the monopole model of a FE and specify that on it, nearly the same routes are taken with the major difference being that on the monopole projection, this is a straight line route. It is a straight arc on a globe as well but more often that not great circle routes are shown on a flat projection which makes the routes appear curved.
There really isn't anywhere else for the conversation to go after that. It doesn't prove that the earth is round or flat.
Also, shouldn't this be in discussion? Debate is for debating between RE and FE, not for FE to discuss.
I agree. Someone will always be able to draw a map to fit your requirements, and nobody actually tracks the path of a plane apart for pilots, which gives ample space for FEers to call fraud.So a friend of mine said this to me, and I had no idea how to reply.
"If I got in an aeroplane in Amsterdam, and flew to the left (west) all the time, how do you explain that after hours of flying you end up in Amsterdam again? How can you explain that with a flat earth?"
There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?
This is a pretty common topic around here and the FE response is typical but not too difficult to offer. Jroa is usually the first to respond to this type of question. He'll first prod with some questions to help the RE'r realize that nobody flys directly west in this manner. Jroa is aware that flights are usually done via a great circle which is a trajectory that changes over the course of a trip. This distinction is known by both FE'rs and RE'rs but RE'rs whom have not given this much thought might not be aware of this and it's a good tactic to take advantage of this fact and make your opponent look like a dimwit. Once they understand that commercial flights don't take this route then you can offer the monopole model of a FE and specify that on it, nearly the same routes are taken with the major difference being that on the monopole projection, this is a straight line route. It is a straight arc on a globe as well but more often that not great circle routes are shown on a flat projection which makes the routes appear curved.
There really isn't anywhere else for the conversation to go after that. It doesn't prove that the earth is round or flat.
Also, shouldn't this be in discussion? Debate is for debating between RE and FE, not for FE to discuss.
Well, a bit of background info.I agree. Someone will always be able to draw a map to fit your requirements, and nobody actually tracks the path of a plane apart for pilots, which gives ample space for FEers to call fraud.So a friend of mine said this to me, and I had no idea how to reply.
"If I got in an aeroplane in Amsterdam, and flew to the left (west) all the time, how do you explain that after hours of flying you end up in Amsterdam again? How can you explain that with a flat earth?"
There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?
This is a pretty common topic around here and the FE response is typical but not too difficult to offer. Jroa is usually the first to respond to this type of question. He'll first prod with some questions to help the RE'r realize that nobody flys directly west in this manner. Jroa is aware that flights are usually done via a great circle which is a trajectory that changes over the course of a trip. This distinction is known by both FE'rs and RE'rs but RE'rs whom have not given this much thought might not be aware of this and it's a good tactic to take advantage of this fact and make your opponent look like a dimwit. Once they understand that commercial flights don't take this route then you can offer the monopole model of a FE and specify that on it, nearly the same routes are taken with the major difference being that on the monopole projection, this is a straight line route. It is a straight arc on a globe as well but more often that not great circle routes are shown on a flat projection which makes the routes appear curved.
There really isn't anywhere else for the conversation to go after that. It doesn't prove that the earth is round or flat.
Also, shouldn't this be in discussion? Debate is for debating between RE and FE, not for FE to discuss.
I thought debate was the right place, the situation was me debating an REer. I'm quite new as well, so I'm still getting used to this format; I guess I'll post such questions in discussion from here on out.
There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?
There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?
Nope. There's nothing you can say to "disprove" his RE theory. And the simple reason is because the earth IS round (or an oblate spheroid).
And to be pedantic for a moment, there's no such thing as a round earth "theory". It's a fact that the earth is round—just as it's a fact that a water molecule contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms. There's no "theory" about water.
There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?
Nope. There's nothing you can say to "disprove" his RE theory. And the simple reason is because the earth IS round (or an oblate spheroid).
And to be pedantic for a moment, there's no such thing as a round earth "theory". It's a fact that the earth is round—just as it's a fact that a water molecule contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms. There's no "theory" about water.
They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?
Nope. There's nothing you can say to "disprove" his RE theory. And the simple reason is because the earth IS round (or an oblate spheroid).
And to be pedantic for a moment, there's no such thing as a round earth "theory". It's a fact that the earth is round—just as it's a fact that a water molecule contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms. There's no "theory" about water.
But what are your arguments? We're here to debate whether the earth is round or not, just saying "it is round hurdur" without bringing any arguments to the table is not debating.
What is your proof that the earth is round?
They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think fr themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.
So a friend of mine said this to me, and I had no idea how to reply.First off, are you sure he actually did this and is not just presenting guesses as evidence?
"If I got in an aeroplane in Amsterdam, and flew to the left (west) all the time, how do you explain that after hours of flying you end up in Amsterdam again? How can you explain that with a flat earth?"
There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?
So your pretty much saying Earth is shaped like a Egg or Football?
What is your proof that the earth is round?
They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think for themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.
Secondly, circumnavigation is possible in all flat earth models. See: the UN Logo.
It isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think for themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.
Okay sceptimatic. Can you let us know, specifically, what empirical evidence you possess that disproves that the planet is spherical?
And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, again specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?
It isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
All water flows to the oceans.
I've just gave you a perfect piece of evidence.It isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
All water flows to the oceans.
Uh... this doesn't address my question about your sources of evidence (above).
I've just gave you a perfect piece of evidence.
You have provided none to prove otherwise.
And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?
Anyone can clarify it . Just go about and look at where the water all runs to. That's enough clarity. You don't even need books or hear say to prove it to yourself.I've just gave you a perfect piece of evidence.
You have provided none to prove otherwise.
I'm not asking you for evidence primarily. I'm asking you more particularly to clarify your sources of evidence...QuoteAnd as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?
Your proof that it is concave? How does that tie in with a horizon if it slopes upwards?It isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think for themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.
Okay sceptimatic. Can you let us know, specifically, what empirical evidence you possess that disproves that the planet is spherical?
And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, again specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?
All water flows to the oceans.
Your horizon is solely down to your vision, not slope of anything.Your proof that it is concave? How does that tie in with a horizon if it slopes upwards?It isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think for themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.
Okay sceptimatic. Can you let us know, specifically, what empirical evidence you possess that disproves that the planet is spherical?
And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, again specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?
All water flows to the oceans.
Please explain. So the earth slopes upwards to make it concave.Your horizon is solely down to your vision, not slope of anything.Your proof that it is concave? How does that tie in with a horizon if it slopes upwards?It isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think for themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.
Okay sceptimatic. Can you let us know, specifically, what empirical evidence you possess that disproves that the planet is spherical?
And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, again specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?
All water flows to the oceans.
As you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable RE evidence, can you also let us know, specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?
Anyone can clarify it . Just go about and look at where the water all runs to.Presumably you mean rivers specifically?
It isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think for themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.
Okay sceptimatic. Can you let us know, specifically, what empirical evidence you possess that disproves that the planet is spherical?
And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, again specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?
All water flows to the oceans.
Are you suggesting they are all flowing towards some common point? A basin in the middle of the planet? Because this clearly isn't the case.It isn't the case for you, because you think you live on a rotating globe, so I don't expect you to get your head around it.
There's ocean around the dinner plate,yesIt isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think for themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.
Okay sceptimatic. Can you let us know, specifically, what empirical evidence you possess that disproves that the planet is spherical?
And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, again specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?
All water flows to the oceans.
there's oceans in every direction. that doesn't prove anything.
Secondly, circumnavigation is possible in all flat earth models.
There's ocean around the dinner plate,yesIt isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think for themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.
Okay sceptimatic. Can you let us know, specifically, what empirical evidence you possess that disproves that the planet is spherical?
And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, again specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?
All water flows to the oceans.
there's oceans in every direction. that doesn't prove anything.
There's ocean around the dinner plate,yesWhat dinner plate? You do give the impression of making stuff up as you go along.
So a friend of mine said this to me, and I had no idea how to reply.
"If I got in an aeroplane in Amsterdam, and flew to the left (west) all the time, how do you explain that after hours of flying you end up in Amsterdam again? How can you explain that with a flat earth?"
There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?
"West" is not a straight line direction from Amsterdam on either the earth or even a globe.
And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, specifically, what sources of data YOU utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?
"West" is not a straight line direction from Amsterdam on either the earth or even a globe.
You do the same harping on a word like jroa. Flying West in everyday common speech like this simply means flying on the same latitude with decreasing longitude. It will bring you back to Amsterdam all right.
The plane would have to constantly be turning on a FE to remain at the same latitude. It wouldn't on a RE. (I know that no one actually flies this way, so don't try to correct me)"West" is not a straight line direction from Amsterdam on either the earth or even a globe.
You do the same harping on a word like jroa. Flying West in everyday common speech like this simply means flying on the same latitude with decreasing longitude. It will bring you back to Amsterdam all right.
As it would on a planar earth as well.
The plane would have to constantly be turning on a FE to remain at the same latitude. It wouldn't on a RE. (I know that no one actually flies this way, so don't try to correct me)Be sure to add "at the equator only".
Errm.. It would... ???The plane would have to constantly be turning on a FE to remain at the same latitude. It wouldn't on a RE. (I know that no one actually flies this way, so don't try to correct me)"West" is not a straight line direction from Amsterdam on either the earth or even a globe.
You do the same harping on a word like jroa. Flying West in everyday common speech like this simply means flying on the same latitude with decreasing longitude. It will bring you back to Amsterdam all right.
As it would on a planar earth as well.
Errm.. It would... ???The plane would have to constantly be turning on a FE to remain at the same latitude. It wouldn't on a RE. (I know that no one actually flies this way, so don't try to correct me)"West" is not a straight line direction from Amsterdam on either the earth or even a globe.
You do the same harping on a word like jroa. Flying West in everyday common speech like this simply means flying on the same latitude with decreasing longitude. It will bring you back to Amsterdam all right.
As it would on a planar earth as well.
The difference of course being on a globe, one could head straight east/west on the equator, and then would have to turn the other way in the southern hemisphere.
It happens on a globe. Trace a latitude line heading east in the north, you'll have to turn left. Trace a latitude line east in the south, you turn right. Trace the equator, you go straight.The difference of course being on a globe, one could head straight east/west on the equator, and then would have to turn the other way in the southern hemisphere.Yes. Could you please show us where this happens?
Maybe a single account of someone experiencing this?Pretty much everyone who has looked at latitude lines on a desktop globe or google earth and happened to notice it. See for yourself if you have a desktop globe or GE.
Yes, certainly that happens on a globe. I believe the question was, is this occurring or has this occurred on the earth which might lead us to believe it was a globe.It happens on a globe. Trace a latitude line heading east in the north, you'll have to turn left. Trace a latitude line east in the south, you turn right. Trace the equator, you go straight.The difference of course being on a globe, one could head straight east/west on the equator, and then would have to turn the other way in the southern hemisphere.Yes. Could you please show us where this happens?
If you fly South it has to be a straight line. And then what happens. Do you hit the south pole or flip to another world underneath the earth?
The plane would have to constantly be turning on a FE to remain at the same latitude. It wouldn't on a RE.Actually, any pilot worth his salt wouldn't be flying on a line of latitude. He would be flying a great circle.
Yes, certainly that happens on a globe. I believe the question was, is this occurring or has this occurred on the earth which might lead us to believe it was a globe.
I note that sceptimatic never answered my questions about his own sources of information that he uses to support his belief in a flat earth.
A few days ago he said that "They [REs] have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet, of course".
And I said:QuoteAnd as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, specifically, what sources of data YOU utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?
It's becoming apparent that when a FE can't answer a direct question, they invariably just ignore it and hope, given time, people will forget about it and it'll just go away.
So... what about it sceptimatic?
I note that sceptimatic never answered my questions about his own sources of information that he uses to support his belief in a flat earth.
A few days ago he said that "They [REs] have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet, of course".
And I said:QuoteAnd as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, specifically, what sources of data YOU utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?
It's becoming apparent that when a FE can't answer a direct question, they invariably just ignore it and hope, given time, people will forget about it and it'll just go away.
So... what about it sceptimatic?
They won't provide you with reliable sources ever. The closest they have is a man how has been dis-proven many times and described as a charlatan (even by the church), Samuel Rowbotham, and a statement made by Galileo who at the time was under duress caused by intimidation from the catholic church, an organization that hasn't done much to make themselves seem trust worthy in the last few years...
The other reason this won't be answered is that the society is terrified of committing to an actual layout of the continents of the earth and has freely admitted they don't know.
[Edit] Source Added - http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/litehous.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/litehous.htm)
I'd be happy with some dimensions. If it's square/rectangular, what are the lengths? if it's circular/round, what's the radius or diameter.
Why do RE scientists not all agree with each other? You would think that they would all have the same opinions on everything if they did real science. They can't all come to the same conclusion. How can you take them seriously?They do.
No, they don't. Some say that Gravity is a particle. Some say it is an energy. Some say it is bendy space_time. There are dozens of other theories.
Most scientists say that HIV causes AIDS. However, there are a bunch who claim it does not.
Some say that vaccines are good for kids. Others say that the side affects are worse than the diseases they are supposed to protect against.
You can't hold the flat Earthers to any less standards than you do for your scientists.
No, they don't. Some say that Gravity is a particle. Some say it is an energy. Some say it is bendy space_time. There are dozens of other theories.
Most scientists say that HIV causes AIDS. However, there are a bunch who claim it does not.
Some say that vaccines are good for kids. Others say that the side affects are worse than the diseases they are supposed to protect against.
You can't hold the flat Earthers to any less standards than you do for your scientists.
Notice again if you will round earthers, how deftly jroa attempts to derail a thread by introducing some totally unconnected factoids (about human health).
Well done mate! And you call yourself a moderator, when in fact you're one of the worst culprits on these forums for this sort of rule breaking. Tsk, tsk.
BTW; you also claim that "There are dozens of other theories" about gravity. Could you please list just a few of them?
—I thought not. Because there aren't any. Sorry.
I did not see anything there about UA.No, they don't. Some say that Gravity is a particle. Some say it is an energy. Some say it is bendy space_time. There are dozens of other theories.
Most scientists say that HIV causes AIDS. However, there are a bunch who claim it does not.
Some say that vaccines are good for kids. Others say that the side affects are worse than the diseases they are supposed to protect against.
You can't hold the flat Earthers to any less standards than you do for your scientists.
Notice again if you will round earthers, how deftly jroa attempts to derail a thread by introducing some totally unconnected factoids (about human health).
Well done mate! And you call yourself a moderator, when in fact you're one of the worst culprits on these forums for this sort of rule breaking. Tsk, tsk.
BTW; you also claim that "There are dozens of other theories" about gravity. Could you please list just a few of them?
—I thought not. Because there aren't any. Sorry.
lol, I answered a question and you try to say I am derailing. Then, you ask something that is off topic. Do you not see the hypocrisy?
Anyway, sense you asked, here is a link to a list of dozens of theories about gravity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Theories_of_gravitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Theories_of_gravitation)
Why do RE scientists not all agree with each other? You would think that they would all have the same opinions on everything if they did real science. They can't all come to the same conclusion. How can you take them seriously?All RE scientists agree the earth is.... round. Which is what we are discussing here.
lol, I answered a question and you try to say I am derailing. Then, you ask something that is off topic. Do you not see the hypocrisy?
Anyway, sense you asked, here is a link to a list of dozens of theories about gravity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Theories_of_gravitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Theories_of_gravitation)
I mentioned gravity as an example where your scientists do not agree with each other, which was totally in the context of the discussion.Who is this 'your', why do you use the word? Are there some that belong to you, if so, please name them.
Who claimed that you can not learn something from Wikipedia?
Also, what is it that I do not understand about science? I would like to know.
If they belonged to me, I would have said mine, not your. Don't you know how words work?Why not just 'scientists', what are you implying?
Who is this 'your', why do you use the word? Are there some that belong to you, if so, please name them.
First you asked us to name one FE scientist. Then, when we gave you that, you changed it to some flat Earth scientists. Now, you have raised it to a half dozen. You seem like you are hanging on by your last straw.
His name is George Vanderduur. Is your Google broken?
Can you provide any evidence that he in fact believes the Earth is round?
If they belonged to me, I would have said mine, not your. Don't you know how words work?I wasn't aware I owned any scientists. When did this happen?
So, you got nothing then, am I right?Can you provide any evidence that he in fact believes the Earth is round?
Nope. I have no need to. You're the person proposing that the earth is flat, therefore it's your task to prove that George Vanderkuur believes that the earth is flat. He's effectively your expert witness to (hopefully) prove your case, therefore the onus of proof lies with you.
But at any rate, he's definitely a round earther. Check out the teacher's notes for that spoof video HERE (http://bit.ly/1dZDnpZ).
You'll see that they say in part "George Vanderkuur, Scientist (“one of many scientists” supporting a flat earth)
Using plumb bob to build tall buildings, opposite sides point to center of Earth would be further apart at
top than at bottom."
Note the quotes around "one of many scientists". This was part of the spoof, as it's a fabrication meant to mislead the kids.
If they belonged to me, I would have said mine, not your. Don't you know how words work?I wasn't aware I owned any scientists. When did this happen?
You can't hold the flat Earthers to any less standards than you do for your scientists.
The easiest reply is to challenge him.
Say, "Well, have you done it?"
You cannot buy tickets from Amsterdam to Amsterdam so I think there's a conspiracy...
You can't hold the flat Earthers to any less standards than you do for your scientists.
We do because different theories in our scientific community come with at least some peer reviewed evidence or statistics. Your theories come with out of date text and things people on here have made up....
What do know about string theory?You can't hold the flat Earthers to any less standards than you do for your scientists.
We do because different theories in our scientific community come with at least some peer reviewed evidence or statistics. Your theories come with out of date text and things people on here have made up....
Please show us some evidence of string theory. Oh, what is that? There is no evidence? It is just a theory?
It is a theory with no evidence.No true. It is an excepted theory with excepted evidence. You probably don't understand what that means.
I expect the Earth to be flat. Checkmate.What you are saying then there is no evidence the earth is flat. Checkmate!
You are the one who brought up that the scientists expect something.I said excepted not expected.
It is a theory with no evidence.
Why? What's that got to do anything? Makes a change from your obession with dark matter, at least.You can't hold the flat Earthers to any less standards than you do for your scientists.
We do because different theories in our scientific community come with at least some peer reviewed evidence or statistics. Your theories come with out of date text and things people on here have made up....
Please show us some evidence of string theory.
Oh, what is that? There is no evidence? It is just a theory?Actually, many scientists don't think it makes it as scientific theory - as it does not make falisfiable predictions. Someone even wrote a book about it called Not Even Wrong. It could be called a mathematical framework, rather than a theory.
I posted this yesterday jroa, but you may have missed it:
Please show us some evidence of string theory. Oh, what is that? There is no evidence? It is just a theory?
So where are your other five scientists who allegedly accept the flat earth model?
I'd be happy with some dimensions. If it's square/rectangular, what are the lengths? if it's circular/round, what's the radius or diameter.
Trust me; not one of the flat earthers here will be able to give you any sort of definitive dimensions backed up with empirical evidence. The proposed dimensions of their flat earth are entirely dependent on which flat earther is telling the story at the time, and has no basis whatsoever in reality.
It is a theory with no evidence.There is no evidence that supports it, but there is no evidence against it. This is the difference between string theory and pseudoscientific flat earth "theory". There is a very large body of evidence, such as the Foucault pendulum, that supports the fact that the earth is round and rotating, but until you see it with your own eyes you cry "FABRICATIONS!! LIES!!" and ignore the sharpness of Occam's razor.
I'd be happy with some dimensions. If it's square/rectangular, what are the lengths? if it's circular/round, what's the radius or diameter.
Trust me; not one of the flat earthers here will be able to give you any sort of definitive dimensions backed up with empirical evidence. The proposed dimensions of their flat earth are entirely dependent on which flat earther is telling the story at the time, and has no basis whatsoever in reality.
A couple of days down the track now, and not one flat earther has even attempted to give us any dimensions whatsoever for their proposed flat earth model.
It's now becoming more obvious every day that the flat earthers simply have no agreed-upon working model for their proposal of a flat earth. And apart from a scribbled image on a piece of paper (courtesy sceptimatic) or referring to the United Nations logo(!), they seem not to even possess a formal map.
And at this point I should remind sceptimatic that he promised to produce a more detailed, elaborate version of his quick sketch within a few days of posting that sketch. Where is it?
Or has it ended up in the same nebulous cyberspace location as his laser/ice experimental research results—that were going to completely reverse the theories of modern science?
Who can know? Maybe sceptimatic is spending all his spare time working on some major new invention that'll be hitting the retail market soon—in order to maintain his fabulously wealthy lifestyle? Or I guess he could be enjoying one of his numerous holiday trips into North Korea to visit the rest of the Dong family, or the Wangs?
So where are your other five scientists who allegedly accept the flat earth model?
All I know is you'll find a lot of pseudoscientists.
After jroa claimed to have named a scientist who (purportedly) accepted the flat earth theory—after I'd asked him for half a dozen names—he failed to respond.
So, a few days afterwards, I posted this in an effort to get a few more names:QuoteSo where are your other five scientists who allegedly accept the flat earth model?
Now, an entire month later, he's still not posted any more names of scientists who accept the flat earth model. Presumably this is because there are none... not even five! Who knows? I couldn't find any.
So, after a month, we can be sure that jroa has had more than enough time to research those scientists, and can now name them.
Over to you jroa. (And please note that any other flat earther is more than welcome to answer my challenge of naming half a dozen accredited scientists who accept the flat earth model.)
You have to be careful when talking about String Theory. People like the FE'ers in this forum know a couple of facts that are enough to make some reasonable people look silly:What do know about string theory?You can't hold the flat Earthers to any less standards than you do for your scientists.
We do because different theories in our scientific community come with at least some peer reviewed evidence or statistics. Your theories come with out of date text and things people on here have made up....
Please show us some evidence of string theory. Oh, what is that? There is no evidence? It is just a theory?
After jroa claimed to have named a scientist who (purportedly) accepted the flat earth theory—after I'd asked him for half a dozen names—he failed to respond.
So, a few days afterwards, I posted this in an effort to get a few more names:QuoteSo where are your other five scientists who allegedly accept the flat earth model?
Now, an entire month later, he's still not posted any more names of scientists who accept the flat earth model. Presumably this is because there are none... not even five! Who knows? I couldn't find any.
So, after a month, we can be sure that jroa has had more than enough time to research those scientists, and can now name them.
Over to you jroa. (And please note that any other flat earther is more than welcome to answer my challenge of naming half a dozen accredited scientists who accept the flat earth model.)
RE'ers are always complaining that FE'ers do not always agree with each other. That was the reason I brought up the fact that RE scientists do not agree with each other either, yet, somehow, we are held to a higher standard.
RE'ers are always complaining that FE'ers do not always agree with each other. That was the reason I brought up the fact that RE scientists do not agree with each other either, yet, somehow, we are held to a higher standard.FE pseudoscientists can not agree on basic pieces of information such as the size or shape of their flat earth or the sun or moon or stars.
Oh no. I am done doing any research for you, ausGeoff. Last time you demanded that I produce one single flat Earth scientist. Not only did I provide a scientist who is a flat Earther, I also produced a university professor and a flat Earth researcher. You simply brushed them all away, saying the researcher used a pseudonym and was therefore untrustworthy, the professor got his doctorate in philosophy, so he does not count, and the actual scientist was simply lying. I am done wasting my time doing research for you.
Leo Ferrari was also in that video. He was a founding member of the Flat Earth Society of Canada. Are you also saying that he was lying?The late Leo Ferrari facetiously styled himself as a "planoterrestrialist", and who in actuality accepted the spheroid earth model.
Leo Ferrari was also in that video. He was a founding member of the Flat Earth Society of Canada. Are you also saying that he was lying?
Leo Ferrari was also in that video. He was a founding member of the Flat Earth Society of Canada. Are you also saying that he was lying?The late Leo Ferrari facetiously styled himself as a "planoterrestrialist", and who in actuality accepted the spheroid earth model.
With obvious humorous overtones, his Flat Earth Society of Canada claimed a prevailing problem of the new technological age was the willingness of people to accept theories "on blind faith and to reject the evidence of their own senses." They did not actually believe flat earth theories, considering their proponents to be cranks.
You can check out Ferrari's Canadian FES HERE (http://bit.ly/1hs4shj)
So to answer your question; yes, Ferrari was distorting the truth. But for a practical purpose 40 years ago.
Leo Ferrari was also in that video. He was a founding member of the Flat Earth Society of Canada. Are you also saying that he was lying?The late Leo Ferrari facetiously styled himself as a "planoterrestrialist", and who in actuality accepted the spheroid earth model.
With obvious humorous overtones, his Flat Earth Society of Canada claimed a prevailing problem of the new technological age was the willingness of people to accept theories "on blind faith and to reject the evidence of their own senses." They did not actually believe flat earth theories, considering their proponents to be cranks.
You can check out Ferrari's Canadian FES HERE (http://bit.ly/1hs4shj)
So to answer your question; yes, Ferrari was distorting the truth. But for a practical purpose 40 years ago.
Leo Ferrari was also in that video. He was a founding member of the Flat Earth Society of Canada. Are you also saying that he was lying?He wasn't a scientist. And yes, absolutely he was lying.
Leo Ferrari was also in that video. He was a founding member of the Flat Earth Society of Canada. Are you also saying that he was lying?Leo Ferrari also claimed to be the Archbishop of Canterbury. Are you saying that he wasn't lying about that?
So, if the Archbishop of Canterbury. A.K.A. Leo Ferrari. says that the earth is flat, then it must be true? Sounds more like a long running college prank to me.
You seem to equate everything with everything else.??? How does that even make sense?
Leo Ferrari was not a true flat earther. Yet, he poignantly embraced the sacred ability to doubt. He was closer to truth than he realized.The ability to doubt.
Actually, Galileo just built upon the works of others. And, Einstein was doubting Maxwell's theories. Newton was out of the picture long before Einstein.And your point is?
Actually, Galileo just built upon the works of others. And, Einstein was doubting Maxwell's theories. Newton was out of the picture long before Einstein.And your point is?
Now that is funny. You make a statement that is basically your opinion and you snap to me about no content. Ok prove your false statement.Actually, Galileo just built upon the works of others. And, Einstein was doubting Maxwell's theories. Newton was out of the picture long before Einstein.And your point is?
I was correcting the previous poster's misconceptions. My post was on topic and the content was appropriate. Your post contributed nothing to the topic at hand and I consider it to be low content. Please, refrain from low content posting in the upper fora. Consider this a warning, Starman.
Now that is funny. You make a statement that is basically your opinion and you snap to me about no content. Ok prove your false statement.Actually, Galileo just built upon the works of others. And, Einstein was doubting Maxwell's theories. Newton was out of the picture long before Einstein.And your point is?
I was correcting the previous poster's misconceptions. My post was on topic and the content was appropriate. Your post contributed nothing to the topic at hand and I consider it to be low content. Please, refrain from low content posting in the upper fora. Consider this a warning, Starman.
Now that is funny. You make a statement that is basically your opinion and you snap to me about no content. Ok prove your false statement.Actually, Galileo just built upon the works of others. And, Einstein was doubting Maxwell's theories. Newton was out of the picture long before Einstein.And your point is?
I was correcting the previous poster's misconceptions. My post was on topic and the content was appropriate. Your post contributed nothing to the topic at hand and I consider it to be low content. Please, refrain from low content posting in the upper fora. Consider this a warning, Starman.
Ok prove your false statement.
Ok prove your false statement.
Why don't you prove that the statement is false? Because, from what I see, you're the only one claiming it to be false.
Burden of proof's on you, buddy.
Actually, Galileo just built upon the works of others. And, Einstein was doubting Maxwell's theories. Newton was out of the picture long before Einstein.
Yeah, there's a notion that Newtonian mechanics were suddenly abandoned because they were proven false or something to that effect. It's weapons grade baloney. Those laws are just special cases of the more complete, relativistic ones that came later. You can use relativity to work out the motion of two 100g balls colliding on your desk if you like but you'll get the same answer Newton would have.
You do realize that Special Relativity has completely different formulas for pretty much all physics as compared to Newton, right? Newtonian equations are convenient and simplistic and that is why they are taught to high school kids. Special Relativity equations are more accurate, but for our frame of reference, the results are very close to the Newtonian ones. Newton's formulas simply don't work when you get bigger or smaller than our frame of reference.Just out of curiosity, what is the point of this argument? Debating Einstein vs Newton may be fun, but it does absolutely nothing to support FET or refute RET.
You do realize that Special Relativity has completely different formulas for pretty much all physics as compared to Newton, right? Newtonian equations are convenient and simplistic and that is why they are taught to high school kids. Special Relativity equations are more accurate, but for our frame of reference, the results are very close to the Newtonian ones. Newton's formulas simply don't work when you get bigger or smaller than our frame of reference.
Actually, Galileo just built upon the works of others.