The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: ProveMeWrong on March 23, 2017, 10:39:50 AM
-
I have trouble figuring out why one person would believe in a flat earth, and another would believe in a round earth. Because when one has an argument with the other, both will always have an answer. Of course, one is not just based on unproven theories and things that a five year old could make up. (I'm talking about the flat earth theory) But I guarantee you that whatever fact you throw at me that proves the earth is flat, I will be able to convince you the earth is round. Hence, my name. Bring it on.
-
I have trouble figuring out why one person would believe in a flat earth, and another would believe in a round earth. Because when one has an argument with the other, both will always have an answer. Of course, one is not just based on unproven theories and things that a five year old could make up. (I'm talking about the flat earth theory) But I guarantee you that whatever fact you throw at me that proves the earth is flat, I will be able to convince you the earth is round. Hence, my name. Bring it on.
Look out your window.
It is called the Bonneville Salt Flats, not the Bonneville Salt Rounds.
Kansas is indeed flatter than a pancake.
-
I have trouble figuring out why one person would believe in a flat earth, and another would believe in a round earth. Because when one has an argument with the other, both will always have an answer. Of course, one is not just based on unproven theories and things that a five year old could make up. (I'm talking about the flat earth theory) But I guarantee you that whatever fact you throw at me that proves the earth is flat, I will be able to convince you the earth is round. Hence, my name. Bring it on.
Look out your window.
It is called the Bonneville Salt Flats, not the Bonneville Salt Rounds.
Kansas is indeed flatter than a pancake.
It is called perception. The earth has a surface area of 510.1 million km˛ and curves at about 8 inches per mile. Just because we don't see the curve doesn't mean its not there. If the earth didn't curve, on a clear day it would be possible to see every thing in a certain direction (Unless your view was obstructed). But for some reason you can't see Europe from the east coast of America.
-
I have trouble figuring out why one person would believe in a flat earth, and another would believe in a round earth. Because when one has an argument with the other, both will always have an answer. Of course, one is not just based on unproven theories and things that a five year old could make up. (I'm talking about the flat earth theory) But I guarantee you that whatever fact you throw at me that proves the earth is flat, I will be able to convince you the earth is round. Hence, my name. Bring it on.
Look out your window.
It is called the Bonneville Salt Flats, not the Bonneville Salt Rounds.
Kansas is indeed flatter than a pancake.
It is called perception...If the earth didn't curve, on a clear day it would be possible to see every thing in a certain direction (Unless your view was obstructed). But for some reason you can't see Europe from the east coast of America.
I will provide you the following post from another prominent and frequently WRONG RE-tard and let you take this up with him, regarding your contention it would be possible to "see everything."
In this section of posts, you can clearly read where a LEGEND IN HIS OWN MIND agrees with me! As far as I know it might the second or third time he has been right on these boards!:
I have been speaking to a friend of mine on distances. And we hit a cross road on how far the moon is from the earth. In doing so he came up with the test of this question; Which has its merits.
1. Highest peak is Everest. we agreed.
2. Highest peak in US. MT Rainer example.
3. His point is why can't I see Everest from MT Rainer with naked eye. I cannot explain perspective to him so im losing the argument. He keeps saying its b/c of curvature.
4. However this make me think...Can someone point a telescope to MT Rainer from completely another state. Ive seen all of the videos of boats and what not, lets get some real distance for a change.
Thank you.
Andy
Aside from the atmoplane being more dense near the ground, there could be all other sorts of visual impediments between a person in one location attempting to look for an object at a different location.
Aside from the fact a person can only make out a penny up to a certain distance.
Personally, I have stood in fog in Chicago and could not see my hand in front of my face, yet I was able to look straight up and see the top of the Willis Tower.
You don't need all this complication on either the Globe or the Flat Earth.
We can assume that because very high points were chosen (though Mt Rainier is not a good choice in the USA) that there are no obstacles.
Even with no obstacles and a perfectly clear atmosphere there is a limit of a few hundred kilometres to visibility.
This is from the scattering of light from the molecules of oxygen in perfectly clean air.
So, flat or Globe, no-one is going to see from USA to even Europe, let alone Mt Everest.
Of course, if the earth is a Globe the visibility is blocked by the "hump" due to curvature, but that's another kettle of fish.
When you say "the fact a person can only make out a penny up to a certain distance", you are right,
but we are not looking at "pennies", but at mountains kilometres wide.
Rowbotham claims that an object can be seen at a distance of about 3,000 x it's size, and that's not a bad estimate.
So a 5 km mountain would be visible from about 15,000 km, were it not for the limited visibility through the atmosphere.
I must be having a bad turn! Here I am almost agreeing with you and agreeing with Rowbotham, guess I'll get over it.
So, even if it was actually clear from the East Coast of the US all the way to the coast of Spain (of course, it seldom is...we are talking about the North Atlantic for crying out loud!), the molecules of the AIR would not allow for you to see more than a few hundred kms.
So, Mr. ProveMeWrong, I just did.
P.S. Change your name.
-
I have trouble figuring out why one person would believe in a flat earth, and another would believe in a round earth. Because when one has an argument with the other, both will always have an answer. Of course, one is not just based on unproven theories and things that a five year old could make up. (I'm talking about the flat earth theory) But I guarantee you that whatever fact you throw at me that proves the earth is flat, I will be able to convince you the earth is round. Hence, my name. Bring it on.
Look out your window.
It is called the Bonneville Salt Flats, not the Bonneville Salt Rounds.
Kansas is indeed flatter than a pancake.
listen to Darf Punk: Around the World
-
I have trouble figuring out why one person would believe in a flat earth, and another would believe in a round earth. Because when one has an argument with the other, both will always have an answer. Of course, one is not just based on unproven theories and things that a five year old could make up. (I'm talking about the flat earth theory) But I guarantee you that whatever fact you throw at me that proves the earth is flat, I will be able to convince you the earth is round. Hence, my name. Bring it on.
Look out your window.
It is called the Bonneville Salt Flats, not the Bonneville Salt Rounds.
Kansas is indeed flatter than a pancake.
It is called perception...If the earth didn't curve, on a clear day it would be possible to see every thing in a certain direction (Unless your view was obstructed). But for some reason you can't see Europe from the east coast of America.
I will provide you the following post from another prominent and frequently WRONG RE-tard and let you take this up with him, regarding your contention it would be possible to "see everything."
In this section of posts, you can clearly read where a LEGEND IN HIS OWN MIND agrees with me! As far as I know it might the second or third time he has been right on these boards!:
I have been speaking to a friend of mine on distances. And we hit a cross road on how far the moon is from the earth. In doing so he came up with the test of this question; Which has its merits.
1. Highest peak is Everest. we agreed.
2. Highest peak in US. MT Rainer example.
3. His point is why can't I see Everest from MT Rainer with naked eye. I cannot explain perspective to him so im losing the argument. He keeps saying its b/c of curvature.
4. However this make me think...Can someone point a telescope to MT Rainer from completely another state. Ive seen all of the videos of boats and what not, lets get some real distance for a change.
Thank you.
Andy
Aside from the atmoplane being more dense near the ground, there could be all other sorts of visual impediments between a person in one location attempting to look for an object at a different location.
Aside from the fact a person can only make out a penny up to a certain distance.
Personally, I have stood in fog in Chicago and could not see my hand in front of my face, yet I was able to look straight up and see the top of the Willis Tower.
You don't need all this complication on either the Globe or the Flat Earth.
We can assume that because very high points were chosen (though Mt Rainier is not a good choice in the USA) that there are no obstacles.
Even with no obstacles and a perfectly clear atmosphere there is a limit of a few hundred kilometres to visibility.
This is from the scattering of light from the molecules of oxygen in perfectly clean air.
So, flat or Globe, no-one is going to see from USA to even Europe, let alone Mt Everest.
Of course, if the earth is a Globe the visibility is blocked by the "hump" due to curvature, but that's another kettle of fish.
When you say "the fact a person can only make out a penny up to a certain distance", you are right,
but we are not looking at "pennies", but at mountains kilometres wide.
Rowbotham claims that an object can be seen at a distance of about 3,000 x it's size, and that's not a bad estimate.
So a 5 km mountain would be visible from about 15,000 km, were it not for the limited visibility through the atmosphere.
I must be having a bad turn! Here I am almost agreeing with you and agreeing with Rowbotham, guess I'll get over it.
So, even if it was actually clear from the East Coast of the US all the way to the coast of Spain (of course, it seldom is...we are talking about the North Atlantic for crying out loud!), the molecules of the AIR would not allow for you to see more than a few hundred kms.
So, Mr. ProveMeWrong, I just did.
P.S. Change your name.
Sorry to keep bothering, but I don't like it when people think they've proven a point. So first off, how would a flat earther explain how molecules in the air are kept down on earth. Second, seeing Europe from America was an example, and I agree it wasn't that great. Third, if the earth were flat and air molecules are the reason we can't see great distances, how amazing it is that they create such a flat horizon. Fourth, may I ask how flat earthers explain things such as: The water not falling off the face of the earth; Exactly what a flat earther thinks is at the edge of the earth, and; how things stay down on a flat earth. Fifth, I think I'll keep my name, thank you.
-
Sorry to keep bothering, but I don't like it when people think they've proven a point.
Except you.
Of course, you do not consider yourself a "people."
In these days of transgenderism and what not, please provide for the readership a complete description of what you are if not a "people."
So first off, how would a flat earther explain how molecules in the air are kept down on earth.
Ask Rabinoz (AKA Geoff).
He is a RE-tard however...so he will tell you some baloney about gravity...
Second, seeing Europe from America was an example, and I agree it wasn't that great.
Yeah, I don't blame you, considering I proved you wrong.
Third, if the earth were flat and air molecules are the reason we can't see great distances, how amazing it is that they create such a flat horizon.
Isn't it though!
Fourth, may I ask how flat earthers explain things such as: The water not falling off the face of the earth; Exactly what a flat earther thinks is at the edge of the earth, and; how things stay down on a flat earth.
Of course you may!
But again...
Look out your window.
They are called the Bonneville Salt Flats, not the Bonneville Salt Rounds.
Kansas is flatter than a pancake.
Fifth, I think I'll keep my name, thank you.
Your choice, but geez...After one post and one instance of being proved wrong, I think you would learn...
But that is "people."
-
Sorry to keep bothering, but I don't like it when people think they've proven a point.
Except you.
Of course, you do not consider yourself a "people."
In these days of transgenderism and what not, please provide for the readership a complete description of what you are if not a "people."
only blabla
So first off, how would a flat earther explain how molecules in the air are kept down on earth.
Ask Rabinoz (AKA Geoff).
He is a RE-tard however...so he will tell you some baloney about gravity...
he ask you as you are a flat earther
Second, seeing Europe from America was an example, and I agree it wasn't that great.
Yeah, I don't blame you, considering I proved you wrong.
you proved nothing
Third, if the earth were flat and air molecules are the reason we can't see great distances, how amazing it is that they create such a flat horizon.
Isn't it though!
Fourth, may I ask how flat earthers explain things such as: The water not falling off the face of the earth; Exactly what a flat earther thinks is at the edge of the earth, and; how things stay down on a flat earth.
Of course you may!
But again...
Look out your window.
They are called the Bonneville Salt Flats, not the Bonneville Salt Rounds.
Kansas is flatter than a pancake.
no real answer
Fifth, I think I'll keep my name, thank you.
Your choice, but geez...After one post and one instance of being proved wrong, I think you would learn...
But that is "people."
you are so often proven wrong that you should change your name in: masterofprovenwrong ;D
-
I have trouble figuring out why one person would believe in a flat earth, and another would believe in a round earth. Because when one has an argument with the other, both will always have an answer. Of course, one is not just based on unproven theories and things that a five year old could make up. (I'm talking about the flat earth theory) But I guarantee you that whatever fact you throw at me that proves the earth is flat, I will be able to convince you the earth is round. Hence, my name. Bring it on.
I give you facts the earth is flat, but you'll convince me it is round, bring it on!
What facts convince you the earth is a spinning speeding ball?
-
I have trouble figuring out why one person would believe in a flat earth, and another would believe in a round earth. Because when one has an argument with the other, both will always have an answer. Of course, one is not just based on unproven theories and things that a five year old could make up. (I'm talking about the flat earth theory) But I guarantee you that whatever fact you throw at me that proves the earth is flat, I will be able to convince you the earth is round. Hence, my name. Bring it on.
I give you facts the earth is flat, but you'll convince me it is round, bring it on!
What facts convince you the earth is a spinning speeding ball?
To be fair, I did ask first.
-
Sorry to keep bothering, but I don't like it when people think they've proven a point.
Except you.
Of course, you do not consider yourself a "people."
In these days of transgenderism and what not, please provide for the readership a complete description of what you are if not a "people."
So first off, how would a flat earther explain how molecules in the air are kept down on earth.
Ask Rabinoz (AKA Geoff).
He is a RE-tard however...so he will tell you some baloney about gravity...
Second, seeing Europe from America was an example, and I agree it wasn't that great.
Yeah, I don't blame you, considering I proved you wrong.
Third, if the earth were flat and air molecules are the reason we can't see great distances, how amazing it is that they create such a flat horizon.
Isn't it though!
Fourth, may I ask how flat earthers explain things such as: The water not falling off the face of the earth; Exactly what a flat earther thinks is at the edge of the earth, and; how things stay down on a flat earth.
Of course you may!
But again...
Look out your window.
They are called the Bonneville Salt Flats, not the Bonneville Salt Rounds.
Kansas is flatter than a pancake.
Fifth, I think I'll keep my name, thank you.
Your choice, but geez...After one post and one instance of being proved wrong, I think you would learn...
But that is "people."
I am truly enjoying this. I am sorry for not being clear when saying "people" but I assumed that anyone with a basic understanding of the human language would use context and be able to figure out what it meant. Sorry I was wrong.
First: I asked you as a flat earther how you would explain air molecules being pulled down. Not a REtard as I happen to be one myself.
Second: You proved absolutely nothing. You used one fact and ignored any other possibilities of physics or science and went for the insult.
Third: Outside of the argument, do you honestly not find it slightly strange that if air molecules really are the answer, that there is just a smooth horizon on an ocean?
Fourth: If you can answer the questions will you? If so, please do now.
And Fifth: I still have not been proven wrong. Probably because I'm not "people."
-
I have trouble figuring out why one person would believe in a flat earth, and another would believe in a round earth. Because when one has an argument with the other, both will always have an answer. Of course, one is not just based on unproven theories and things that a five year old could make up. (I'm talking about the flat earth theory) But I guarantee you that whatever fact you throw at me that proves the earth is flat, I will be able to convince you the earth is round. Hence, my name. Bring it on.
I give you facts the earth is flat, but you'll convince me it is round, bring it on!
What facts convince you the earth is a spinning speeding ball?
To be fair, I did ask first.
You admitted flat earthers give facts, so I guess you'll just ignore them because you do not want to be convinced?
-
Sorry to keep bothering, but I don't like it when people think they've proven a point.
Except you.
Of course, you do not consider yourself a "people."
In these days of transgenderism and what not, please provide for the readership a complete description of what you are if not a "people."
only blabla
What is the scientific classification/taxonomy/nomenclature of an "only blabla?"
-
I have trouble figuring out why one person would believe in a flat earth, and another would believe in a round earth. Because when one has an argument with the other, both will always have an answer. Of course, one is not just based on unproven theories and things that a five year old could make up. (I'm talking about the flat earth theory) But I guarantee you that whatever fact you throw at me that proves the earth is flat, I will be able to convince you the earth is round. Hence, my name. Bring it on.
I give you facts the earth is flat, but you'll convince me it is round, bring it on!
What facts convince you the earth is a spinning speeding ball?
To be fair, I did ask first.
Good, I'll be happy to entertain you in this thread:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69299.0
-
I have trouble figuring out why one person would believe in a flat earth, and another would believe in a round earth. Because when one has an argument with the other, both will always have an answer. Of course, one is not just based on unproven theories and things that a five year old could make up. (I'm talking about the flat earth theory) But I guarantee you that whatever fact you throw at me that proves the earth is flat, I will be able to convince you the earth is round. Hence, my name. Bring it on.
I give you facts the earth is flat, but you'll convince me it is round, bring it on!
What facts convince you the earth is a spinning speeding ball?
To be fair, I did ask first.
You admitted flat earthers give facts, so I guess you'll just ignore them because you do not want to be convinced?
Alright. I did ask first. So I should get an answer first. However, I solemnly swear that I will take everything you say into consideration, and retaliate with my beliefs. Its called a debate. Literally the name of this section of the forum.
-
I have trouble figuring out why one person would believe in a flat earth, and another would believe in a round earth. Because when one has an argument with the other, both will always have an answer. Of course, one is not just based on unproven theories and things that a five year old could make up. (I'm talking about the flat earth theory) But I guarantee you that whatever fact you throw at me that proves the earth is flat, I will be able to convince you the earth is round. Hence, my name. Bring it on.
I give you facts the earth is flat, but you'll convince me it is round, bring it on!
What facts convince you the earth is a spinning speeding ball?
To be fair, I did ask first.
You admitted flat earthers give facts, so I guess you'll just ignore them because you do not want to be convinced?
Alright. I did ask first. So I should get an answer first. However, I solemnly swear that I will take everything you say into consideration, and retaliate with my beliefs. Its called a debate. Literally the name of this section of the forum.
All my facts are laid out in this thread, I'm not repeating them over and over, meet you here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69299.0
-
I have trouble figuring out why one person would believe in a flat earth, and another would believe in a round earth. Because when one has an argument with the other, both will always have an answer. Of course, one is not just based on unproven theories and things that a five year old could make up. (I'm talking about the flat earth theory) But I guarantee you that whatever fact you throw at me that proves the earth is flat, I will be able to convince you the earth is round. Hence, my name. Bring it on.
I give you facts the earth is flat, but you'll convince me it is round, bring it on!
What facts convince you the earth is a spinning speeding ball?
To be fair, I did ask first.
Good, I'll be happy to entertain you in this thread:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69299.0
And the debate begins. The weight, or gravitational force of earth is 5.972 × 10^24 kg meaning that it applies that force on everything in the world, including water. Where as the ball has no force on the the water, and thus its spinning throws the water off. If you were to discard gravity as a myth, then I can't convince you.
-
All my facts are laid out in this thread, I'm not repeating them over and over, meet you here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69299.0
and all your "facts" got debunked in that threat.
-
I have trouble figuring out why one person would believe in a flat earth, and another would believe in a round earth. Because when one has an argument with the other, both will always have an answer. Of course, one is not just based on unproven theories and things that a five year old could make up. (I'm talking about the flat earth theory) But I guarantee you that whatever fact you throw at me that proves the earth is flat, I will be able to convince you the earth is round. Hence, my name. Bring it on.
I give you facts the earth is flat, but you'll convince me it is round, bring it on!
What facts convince you the earth is a spinning speeding ball?
To be fair, I did ask first.
Good, I'll be happy to entertain you in this thread:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69299.0
And the debate begins. The weight, or gravitational force of earth is 5.972 × 10^24 kg meaning that it applies that force on everything in the world, including water. Where as the ball has no force on the the water, and thus its spinning throws the water off. If you were to discard gravity as a myth, then I can't convince you.
Gravity is a theory, not a fact. I thought you were going to give facts? Biogenesis is a fact, or a principle/law of science because it was proven over and over with scientific testing. Gravity is still in a theory state because it really can't be proven to exist, much speculation, but nothing that can move it off the "assertion" list. What else do you have?
-
I have trouble figuring out why one person would believe in a flat earth, and another would believe in a round earth. Because when one has an argument with the other, both will always have an answer. Of course, one is not just based on unproven theories and things that a five year old could make up. (I'm talking about the flat earth theory) But I guarantee you that whatever fact you throw at me that proves the earth is flat, I will be able to convince you the earth is round. Hence, my name. Bring it on.
I give you facts the earth is flat, but you'll convince me it is round, bring it on!
What facts convince you the earth is a spinning speeding ball?
To be fair, I did ask first.
Good, I'll be happy to entertain you in this thread:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69299.0
And the debate begins. The weight, or gravitational force of earth is 5.972 × 10^24 kg meaning that it applies that force on everything in the world, including water. Where as the ball has no force on the the water, and thus its spinning throws the water off. If you were to discard gravity as a myth, then I can't convince you.
Gravity is a theory, not a fact. I thought you were going to give facts? Biogenesis is a fact, or a principle/law of science because it was proven over and over with scientific testing. Gravity is still in a theory state because it really can't be proven to exist, much speculation, but nothing that can move it off the "assertion" list. What else do you have?
On a flat earth, if you were to walk forward for ten miles, make a right angle turn, walk another ten miles, and do this four times, you should arrive at the same point. However on a round earth, the curvature of the earth does not allow this. And this has been tested and proven.
Can you give me another FE fact that I can try to counter?
-
I am truly enjoying this. I am sorry for not being clear when saying "people" but I assumed that anyone with a basic understanding of the human language would use context and be able to figure out what it meant. Sorry I was wrong.
First: I asked you as a flat earther how you would explain air molecules being pulled down. Not a REtard as I happen to be one myself.
Heavier things fall.
Second: You proved absolutely nothing. You used one fact and ignored any other possibilities of physics or science and went for the insult.
Did you or did you not claim Europe should be visible from the East Coast of the US if the Earth was flat?
Answer = YOU DID
Did I or did I not provide you with the proof that Europe, whether the Earth is flat or or a globe, cannot be seen from the East Coast of the US?
Answer = YES I DID
Third: Outside of the argument, do you honestly not find it slightly strange that if air molecules really are the answer, that there is just a smooth horizon on an ocean?
No.
I find it amazing.
Fourth: If you can answer the questions will you? If so, please do now.
Your OP asked: "bring it on."
I brought on:
Look out your window.
They are called the Bonneville Salt Flats, not the Bonneville Salt Rounds.
Kansas is flatter than a pancake.
Deal with that.
And Fifth: I still have not been proven wrong. Probably because I'm not "people."
Yes you were.
-
Science doesn't work by throwing out lone arguments over and over, it works by comparing full models. A complete, or at least more complete FE model (barring the aspects it takes absurd resources to find: such as mapping the world. If you can do that in your free time let me know), should be compared to RET as a whole.
That's the only scientific way to work.
As it is, FET requires fewer assumptions. Of course, to reach that conclusion you'd need to take the time to honestly learn a model, rather than as many REers do here, come along to feel superior and outright lie in pursuit of that goal.
I'm happy if you disagree with me, so long as you give FET a fair and honest examination.
-
On a flat earth, if you were to walk forward for ten miles, make a right angle turn, walk another ten miles, and do this four times, you should arrive at the same point. However on a round earth, the curvature of the earth does not allow this. And this has been tested and proven.
Can you give me another FE fact that I can try to counter?
This is wrong.
There are country roads all over the the Midwest US where a person could drive 10 miles make a right turn, drive 10 miles make another right turn, drive 10 miles make another right turn, drive 10 miles and end up where he/she started.
-
I am truly enjoying this. I am sorry for not being clear when saying "people" but I assumed that anyone with a basic understanding of the human language would use context and be able to figure out what it meant. Sorry I was wrong.
First: I asked you as a flat earther how you would explain air molecules being pulled down. Not a REtard as I happen to be one myself.
Heavier things fall.
Second: You proved absolutely nothing. You used one fact and ignored any other possibilities of physics or science and went for the insult.
Did you or did you not claim Europe should be visible from the East Coast of the US if the Earth was flat?
Answer = YOU DID
Did I or did I not provide you with the proof that Europe, whether the Earth is flat or or a globe, cannot be seen from the East Coast of the US?
Answer = YES I DID
Third: Outside of the argument, do you honestly not find it slightly strange that if air molecules really are the answer, that there is just a smooth horizon on an ocean?
No.
I find it amazing.
Fourth: If you can answer the questions will you? If so, please do now.
Your OP asked: "bring it on."
I brought on:
Look out your window.
They are called the Bonneville Salt Flats, not the Bonneville Salt Rounds.
Kansas is flatter than a pancake.
Deal with that.
And Fifth: I still have not been proven wrong. Probably because I'm not "people."
Yes you were.
Getting a little miffed now.
Why do heavier things fall on a flat earth.
The part of seeing Europe from America was a bad reason. However you proved it with a round earth theory, when I was looking for a flat earth theory.
I'm worried that the name of something can change how you interpret what it means. The earth has a surface area of 510.1 million km˛ and curves a 8 inches per mile. Thus the horizon is roughly 3 miles away and I doubt the human eye can see an 8 inch difference from 3 miles away.
I have not been proven wrong. Because for some reason I'm still here, my beliefs have not been changed, and others in this thread have been countering your arguments as well. I am not changing my name.
-
Science doesn't work by throwing out lone arguments over and over, it works by comparing full models. A complete, or at least more complete FE model (barring the aspects it takes absurd resources to find: such as mapping the world. If you can do that in your free time let me know), should be compared to RET as a whole.
That's the only scientific way to work.
As it is, FET requires fewer assumptions. Of course, to reach that conclusion you'd need to take the time to honestly learn a model, rather than as many REers do here, come along to feel superior and outright lie in pursuit of that goal.
I'm happy if you disagree with me, so long as you give FET a fair and honest examination.
Can I see one of those models?
-
On a flat earth, if you were to walk forward for ten miles, make a right angle turn, walk another ten miles, and do this four times, you should arrive at the same point. However on a round earth, the curvature of the earth does not allow this. And this has been tested and proven.
Can you give me another FE fact that I can try to counter?
This is wrong.
There are country roads all over the the Midwest US where a person could drive 10 miles make a right turn, drive 10 miles make another right turn, drive 10 miles make another right turn, drive 10 miles and end up where he/she started.
Source?
-
Can I see one of those models?
I link to the one I hold to in my sig.
(It's on a different site to allow guests to query, and because when i made it this site was going through bouts of becoming so slow it was unusable. Just more accessible, but the outline's easy to find there).
-
Science doesn't work by throwing out lone arguments over and over, it works by comparing full models. A complete, or at least more complete FE model (barring the aspects it takes absurd resources to find: such as mapping the world. If you can do that in your free time let me know), should be compared to RET as a whole.
That's the only scientific way to work.
As it is, FET requires fewer assumptions. Of course, to reach that conclusion you'd need to take the time to honestly learn a model, rather than as many REers do here, come along to feel superior and outright lie in pursuit of that goal.
I'm happy if you disagree with me, so long as you give FET a fair and honest examination.
I'm sorry but its strange to be said that the RET relies on jumping to conclusions when the FET says that there is a disk floating in space, somehow keeping things pulled down on it, with a floating ball of light over it, and people on it attempting to keep the rest from figuring out the truth.
Answer me why there is a disk, who made it, is it natural? What is the point of it. Is humanity really so special that we deserve a plate to live on, that defies all laws of physics?
-
Can I see one of those models?
I link to the one I hold to in my sig.
(It's on a different site to allow guests to query, and because when i made it this site was going through bouts of becoming so slow it was unusable. Just more accessible, but the outline's easy to find there).
Well, I'm convinced.
-
On a flat earth, if you were to walk forward for ten miles, make a right angle turn, walk another ten miles, and do this four times, you should arrive at the same point. However on a round earth, the curvature of the earth does not allow this. And this has been tested and proven.
Can you give me another FE fact that I can try to counter?
This is wrong.
There are country roads all over the the Midwest US where a person could drive 10 miles make a right turn, drive 10 miles make another right turn, drive 10 miles make another right turn, drive 10 miles and end up where he/she started.
For a ten mile square the angular deficiency is only about a fifth of a second of arc.
-
I'm sorry but its strange to be said that the RET relies on jumping to conclusions when the FET says that there is a disk floating in space, somehow keeping things pulled down on it, with a floating ball of light over it, and people on it attempting to keep the rest from figuring out the truth.
Answer me why there is a disk, who made it, is it natural? What is the point of it. Is humanity really so special that we deserve a plate to live on, that defies all laws of physics?
RET says that there is a ball floating in space, somehow keeping things pulled down on it, with a floating ball of light over it.
Answer me why there is a ball, who made it, is it natural? What is the point of it. Is humanity really so special that we deserve a plate to live on, that defies all laws of physics?
Just because you don't know the answers doesn't mean they don't exist. My model explains how the disk is formed and why, and how it does not defy the laws of physics, as well as what and why the Sun works, and why we stay on the disk's surface. (And I don't believe in a conspiracy. the notion of people hiding a Flat Earth is popularised by REers, look at what serious FEers believe and on the wiki etc, it's that there is a space travel conspiracy and a space travel conspiracy alone. Thinking the world is round is no more than an honest mistake. And yet no matter how often I repeat that REers just insist I'm somehow wrong about my own model).
It's not jumping to conclusions just because you haven't seen the workings.
-
Getting a little miffed now.
That's okay.
Take a breather, count to ten,whatever...
Its the Internet.
Why do heavier things fall on a flat earth.
Density and buoyancy.
The part of seeing Europe from America was a bad reason. However you proved it with a round earth theory, when I was looking for a flat earth theory.
RE and FE can agree on some things, especially obvious things.
I'm worried that the name of something can change how you interpret what it means. The earth has a surface area of 510.1 million km˛ and curves a 8 inches per mile. Thus the horizon is roughly 3 miles away and I doubt the human eye can see an 8 inch difference from 3 miles away.
There are people starving in Africa, drug addicts down the street, and you are worried about a horizon 3 miles away?
I have not been proven wrong. Because for some reason I'm still here, my beliefs have not been changed, and others in this thread have been countering your arguments as well. I am not changing my name.
You were proven wrong, whether you admit it or not.
Everyone here can easily read your claim.
Everyone here can easily read my rebuttal.
It will be okay.
Since you do not want to deal with your window, the Bonneville Salt Flats, or Kansas, I will bid you good day.
Take a Xanax or drink some sleepy time tea.
-
I'm sorry but its strange to be said that the RET relies on jumping to conclusions when the FET says that there is a disk floating in space, somehow keeping things pulled down on it, with a floating ball of light over it, and people on it attempting to keep the rest from figuring out the truth.
Answer me why there is a disk, who made it, is it natural? What is the point of it. Is humanity really so special that we deserve a plate to live on, that defies all laws of physics?
RET says that there is a ball floating in space, somehow keeping things pulled down on it, with a floating ball of light over it.
Answer me why there is a ball, who made it, is it natural? What is the point of it. Is humanity really so special that we deserve a plate to live on, that defies all laws of physics?
Just because you don't know the answers doesn't mean they don't exist. My model explains how the disk is formed and why, and how it does not defy the laws of physics, as well as what and why the Sun works, and why we stay on the disk's surface. (And I don't believe in a conspiracy. the notion of people hiding a Flat Earth is popularised by REers, look at what serious FEers believe and on the wiki etc, it's that there is a space travel conspiracy and a space travel conspiracy alone. Thinking the world is round is no more than an honest mistake. And yet no matter how often I repeat that REers just insist I'm somehow wrong about my own model).
It's not jumping to conclusions just because you haven't seen the workings.
At least round earthers have a logical explanation and description of what is happening in the solar system we live in and can accurately describe things to points so precise that it's very difficult not to be true. Flat earthers provide absolutely nothing. You guys can't even make a map that makes any sense, whereas I can take a round earther map and somehow it's always accurate. Why would the object we live on behave any differently than the objects we can see around us?
-
Source?
Come drive in the Midwest of the US.
Or go walk on the Bonneville Salt Flats or Salar de Uyuni.
That way you do not need a source.
-
At least round earthers have a logical explanation and description of what is happening in the solar system we live in and can accurately describe things to points so precise that it's very difficult not to be true. Flat earthers provide absolutely nothing.
No, you just haven't bothered to learn any of it. I provide plenty, such as in my sig in every damn post I make, you're just ignoring it because you'd rather lie and feel superior than mount an honest argument. Not taking the time to learn a model does not mean a model does not exist. Did you even read what I wrote?!
You guys can't even make a map that makes any sense, whereas I can take a round earther map and somehow it's always accurate.
You try making a map from scratch for god's sake. The RE and FE maps are identical on a small scale and on a large scale map plays second fiddle to landmarks because there's a lot that interrupts straight-line motion.
Why would the object we live on behave any differently than the objects we can see around us?
You tell me. I'm guessing, as you're a REer, you must believe the Earth's a star then? We see those around us.
It doesn't 'behave differently,' being in a different place means it's subject to different forces. Otherwise you're saying only one kind of entity can form and we're just like the Sun. That isn't the case under RET, why would it be under FET?
-
At least round earthers have a logical explanation and description of what is happening in the solar system we live in and can accurately describe things to points so precise that it's very difficult not to be true. Flat earthers provide absolutely nothing.
No, you just haven't bothered to learn any of it. I provide plenty, such as in my sig in every damn post I make, you're just ignoring it because you'd rather lie and feel superior than mount an honest argument. Not taking the time to learn a model does not mean a model does not exist. Did you even read what I wrote?!
All I'm saying is round earthers offer descriptions of their theories that are observed in the real world. Flat earthers provide nothing. No verifiable math, logic, etc. Round earthers can build satellites that work, observe hurricanes, tell you exactly when the sun will rise and set wherever you are on the round earth, etc. What have flat earthers proven?
You guys can't even make a map that makes any sense, whereas I can take a round earther map and somehow it's always accurate.
You try making a map from scratch for god's sake. The RE and FE maps are identical on a small scale and on a large scale map plays second fiddle to landmarks because there's a lot that interrupts straight-line motion.
[/quote]
Round earthers were able to. A flat earth would be easy to map.
Why would the object we live on behave any differently than the objects we can see around us?
You tell me. I'm guessing, as you're a REer, you must believe the Earth's a star then? We see those around us.
It doesn't 'behave differently,' being in a different place means it's subject to different forces. Otherwise you're saying only one kind of entity can form and we're just like the Sun. That isn't the case under RET, why would it be under FET?
Of course it would behave differently than what we observe. First it would be a flat disc when we see round objects around us, second it would be accelerating "upwards", whatever that means and other objects seem to rotate in circles.
-
All I'm saying is round earthers offer descriptions of their theories that are observed in the real world. Flat earthers provide nothing. No verifiable math, logic, etc. Round earthers can build satellites that work, observe hurricanes, tell you exactly when the sun will rise and set wherever you are on the round earth, etc. What have flat earthers proven?
Again, you are outright lying, and by this point knowingly doing so. I have provided the means for you to see what we can provide, and you're just pretending it doesn't exist.
We provide less maths, certainly, because accurate equations require hugely detailed experiments that require more resources than any of us have. As far as the abstract goes, FET and RET agree on the basics, the departures aren't newtonian, what you're asking is to basically derive models on par with relativity. That's not a first step. I agree, it would be nice to see more, but some things simply aren't feasible. Einstein worked for years on the backs of work others had done. We don't have that. No FEer can study FET full-time because it is not a respected field, and we have less to work with.
Round earthers were able to. A flat earth would be easy to map.
Round earthers took centuries and had the resources of multiple countries, are you being serious?! Sure, provide that and I'll be happy to.
Of course it would behave differently than what we observe. First it would be a flat disc when we see round objects around us, second it would be accelerating "upwards", whatever that means and other objects seem to rotate in circles.
It's not accelerating upwards, only a minority of FEers believe that. The FAQ's poorly maintained. if you haven't been paying enough attention to this site to learn even that, how exactly are these sweeping proclamations of yours informed?
Just like, under RET, there is a reason for some things to be planets and others to be stars, there is a reason under FET for some things to be flat, and the other to be round. That should not be a hard concept.
-
All I'm saying is round earthers offer descriptions of their theories that are observed in the real world. Flat earthers provide nothing. No verifiable math, logic, etc. Round earthers can build satellites that work, observe hurricanes, tell you exactly when the sun will rise and set wherever you are on the round earth, etc. What have flat earthers proven?
Again, you are outright lying, and by this point knowingly doing so. I have provided the means for you to see what we can provide, and you're just pretending it doesn't exist.
What's the lie? Tell me one thing that round earthers have proven that you can disprove? Heck, I can click a button on my phone and it knows exactly where I'm located and can tell me exactly how far and what direction I need to go to get to the destination I want. So obviously someone knows how to calculate precisely someones location on this object. Where are the flat earther technologies that work? It's weird how the round earthers always tell me when I fly how long it will take, what I will be flying over, and where I will end up... and I always end up there. I've never seen a flat earther tell me that.
We provide less maths, certainly, because accurate equations require hugely detailed experiments that require more resources than any of us have. As far as the abstract goes, FET and RET agree on the basics, the departures aren't newtonian, what you're asking is to basically derive models on par with relativity. That's not a first step. I agree, it would be nice to see more, but some things simply aren't feasible. Einstein worked for years on the backs of work others had done. We don't have that. No FEer can study FET full-time because it is not a respected field, and we have less to work with.
Yet, round earthers are able to build those technologies. Why are the flat earthers unable to build technologies to prove the earth is flat? Should be much easier to prove the earth is flat and how to navigate it and locate your position relative to the sun, stars, other planets, etc. For some reason, round earthers can tell you where to look to see a planet and that planet is always there. Kind of weird how flat earthers can't do that.
Round earthers were able to. A flat earth would be easy to map.
Round earthers took centuries and had the resources of multiple countries, are you being serious?! Sure, provide that and I'll be happy to.
Of course it would behave differently than what we observe. First it would be a flat disc when we see round objects around us, second it would be accelerating "upwards", whatever that means and other objects seem to rotate in circles.
It's not accelerating upwards, only a minority of FEers believe that. The FAQ's poorly maintained. if you haven't been paying enough attention to this site to learn even that, how exactly are these sweeping proclamations of yours informed?
Just like, under RET, there is a reason for some things to be planets and others to be stars, there is a reason under FET for some things to be flat, and the other to be round. That should not be a hard concept.
[/quote]
But you can't explain any of those reasons. The earth is flat simply because you say it is flat. Weird how whatever the round earthers tell me always seems to work but flat earthers can't tell me anything that I can observe that makes any sense. Hmmm....
-
I'm sorry but its strange to be said that the RET relies on jumping to conclusions when the FET says that there is a disk floating in space, somehow keeping things pulled down on it, with a floating ball of light over it, and people on it attempting to keep the rest from figuring out the truth.
Answer me why there is a disk, who made it, is it natural? What is the point of it. Is humanity really so special that we deserve a plate to live on, that defies all laws of physics?
RET says that there is a ball floating in space, somehow keeping things pulled down on it, with a floating ball of light over it.
Answer me why there is a ball, who made it, is it natural? What is the point of it. Is humanity really so special that we deserve a plate to live on, that defies all laws of physics?
Just because you don't know the answers doesn't mean they don't exist. My model explains how the disk is formed and why, and how it does not defy the laws of physics, as well as what and why the Sun works, and why we stay on the disk's surface. (And I don't believe in a conspiracy. the notion of people hiding a Flat Earth is popularised by REers, look at what serious FEers believe and on the wiki etc, it's that there is a space travel conspiracy and a space travel conspiracy alone. Thinking the world is round is no more than an honest mistake. And yet no matter how often I repeat that REers just insist I'm somehow wrong about my own model).
It's not jumping to conclusions just because you haven't seen the workings.
See, thing is that gravity, although it is a theory, is the reason of all of that. I'll explain it simply.
The sun, is so massive and has so many atoms pulling on eachothers, that it naturally forms a sphere, same with earth. Earth, and all the other planets, are pulled towards the sun, and because their velocity is so fast and in one direction, that they do not fall in.
Imagine a Canon on a sphere. If it fires the ball is pulled down to the sphere. If it fires hard enough to get the ball around the sphere, eventually the ball would reach a point where it would continuously rotate around.
-
Getting a little miffed now.
That's okay.
Take a breather, count to ten,whatever...
Its the Internet.
Why do heavier things fall on a flat earth.
Density and buoyancy.
The part of seeing Europe from America was a bad reason. However you proved it with a round earth theory, when I was looking for a flat earth theory.
RE and FE can agree on some things, especially obvious things.
I'm worried that the name of something can change how you interpret what it means. The earth has a surface area of 510.1 million km˛ and curves a 8 inches per mile. Thus the horizon is roughly 3 miles away and I doubt the human eye can see an 8 inch difference from 3 miles away.
There are people starving in Africa, drug addicts down the street, and you are worried about a horizon 3 miles away?
I have not been proven wrong. Because for some reason I'm still here, my beliefs have not been changed, and others in this thread have been countering your arguments as well. I am not changing my name.
You were proven wrong, whether you admit it or not.
Everyone here can easily read your claim.
Everyone here can easily read my rebuttal.
It will be okay.
Since you do not want to deal with your window, the Bonneville Salt Flats, or Kansas, I will bid you good day.
Take a Xanax or drink some sleepy time tea.
Nononono we are not done yet. How does density and buoyancy work on a flat earth? I want facts not just short sarcastic answers. We have different interpretations of what my point was. I was trying to prove that the earth is round. The Bonneville Salt Flats are just an open plain. The human eye cannot see the curvature of the earth as it is so huge. I'm not sure if your real or a troll, because your arguments and way of ending the debate is so ridiculous. Saying words does not prove a point, give me evidence and actual scientific answers. Looking forward to your sarcastic response.
-
Source?
Come drive in the Midwest of the US.
Or go walk on the Bonneville Salt Flats or Salar de Uyuni.
That way you do not need a source.
Stop using one example. The human eye cannot see the curvature of the earth. If the earth were flat, then a horizon would be blurred, not a straight line.
-
Nononono we are not done yet.
Are you sure?
How does density and buoyancy work on a flat earth? I want facts not just short sarcastic answers.
Objects have measurable density and buoyancy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Buoyancy.svg/330px-Buoyancy.svg.png)
For buoyancy, in the last image, you can eliminate the word gravity as that is not necessary as far as I am concerned.
We have different interpretations of what my point was.
I do not think so.
I was trying to prove that the earth is round. The Bonneville Salt Flats are just an open plain. The human eye cannot see the curvature of the earth as it is so huge.
I disagree.
The human eye cannot see the curvature because it is non-existent.
The Bonneville Salt Flats are flat.
Kansas is flat.
If you look out your window, it is flat.
I'm not sure if your real or a troll, because your arguments and way of ending the debate is so ridiculous.
Providing you with actual science is not being a troll.
You made a claim that was obviously incorrect.
I provided irrefutable evidence.
You have not.
Saying words does not prove a point
This is rich!
I am going out on a limb here (not very far), but I venture you are actually communicating the following:
"Anyone who disagrees with my worldview and says so is not proving a point. Only I and those I agree with can say, type, and write anything that proves a point... SO THERE!". ...give me evidence and actual scientific answers.
I have.
Looking forward to your sarcastic response.
I doubt that.
-
Stop using one example. The human eye cannot see the curvature of the earth. If the earth were flat, then a horizon would be blurred, not a straight line.
Why?
-
Stop using one example. The human eye cannot see the curvature of the earth. If the earth were flat, then a horizon would be blurred, not a straight line.
Why?
the earth curving away from us creates a more or less solid line horizon. if the earth were flat, said horizon would be caused by the haze of the atmosphere, which doesn't create a hard line.
-
Stop using one example. The human eye cannot see the curvature of the earth. If the earth were flat, then a horizon would be blurred, not a straight line.
Why?
the earth curving away from us creates a more or less solid line horizon. if the earth were flat, said horizon would be caused by the haze of the atmosphere, which doesn't create a hard line.
You do realize that is a totally fallacious argument.
Jesus, that is funny!
-
I have trouble figuring out why one person would believe in a flat earth, and another would believe in a round earth. Because when one has an argument with the other, both will always have an answer. Of course, one is not just based on unproven theories and things that a five year old could make up. (I'm talking about the flat earth theory) But I guarantee you that whatever fact you throw at me that proves the earth is flat, I will be able to convince you the earth is round. Hence, my name. Bring it on.
Look out your window.
It is called the Bonneville Salt Flats, not the Bonneville Salt Rounds.
Kansas is indeed flatter than a pancake.
No, you are quite wrong! When I look out my window ;D I do not see "the Bonneville Salt Flats". ;D
And the Globe is flatter than a pancake, so what is your claim that "Kansas is indeed flatter than a pancake" supposed to prove?
I know it does not prove that Kansas is on a Globe, but it means that your "Kansas is indeed flatter than a pancake" is not evidence for a flat earth!
Any more proof, those fell flat, though a very roundish flat!
-
Nononono we are not done yet.
Are you sure?
How does density and buoyancy work on a flat earth? I want facts not just short sarcastic answers.
Objects have measurable density and buoyancy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Buoyancy.svg/330px-Buoyancy.svg.png)
For buoyancy, in the last image, you can eliminate the word gravity as that is not necessary as far as I am concerned.
We have different interpretations of what my point was.
I do not think so.
I was trying to prove that the earth is round. The Bonneville Salt Flats are just an open plain. The human eye cannot see the curvature of the earth as it is so huge.
I disagree.
The human eye cannot see the curvature because it is non-existent.
The Bonneville Salt Flats are flat.
Kansas is flat.
If you look out your window, it is flat.
I'm not sure if your real or a troll, because your arguments and way of ending the debate is so ridiculous.
Providing you with actual science is not being a troll.
You made a claim that was obviously incorrect.
I provided irrefutable evidence.
You have not.
Saying words does not prove a point
This is rich!
I am going out on a limb here (not very far), but I venture you are actually communicating the following:
"Anyone who disagrees with my worldview and says so is not proving a point. Only I and those I agree with can say, type, and write anything that proves a point... SO THERE!". ...give me evidence and actual scientific answers.
I have.
Looking forward to your sarcastic response.
I doubt that.
I am attempting to have a debate. So if I disagree with something you say, its because I disagree with something you say. When I said, your just saying words, I mean that you say things without backing it up. The density and buoyancy thing doesn't make sense without a round earth. Because if the earth were a flat plain, that still had the law that heavier things are pulled down, then it would collapse on itself, thus creating a sphere. The Bonneville Salt Flats only look flat, they do have a curve. And one location being flat does not prove the entire world is flat. Allow me to have a debate without trying to shut it down before I've proven my point, or you. Because, to me, your point has not been proven, and I'm the one you have to prove it to.
-
I am attempting to have a debate.
So far, its just been "NO U!" coming from your side.
So if I disagree with something you say, its because I disagree with something you say.
It is okay to disagree.
When I said, your just saying words, I mean that you say things without backing it up.
You posted this, remember?
"It is called perception. The earth has a surface area of 510.1 million km˛ and curves at about 8 inches per mile. Just because we don't see the curve doesn't mean its not there. If the earth didn't curve, on a clear day it would be possible to see every thing in a certain direction (Unless your view was obstructed). But for some reason you can't see Europe from the east coast of America."
You posted that without any backing whatsoever...
I, on the other hand, posted very clear and concise IRREFUTABLE explanations for why Europe cannot be seen from the East Cost of the US.
You definitely have things backwards.
The density and buoyancy thing doesn't make sense without a round earth. Because if the earth were a flat plain, that still had the law that heavier things are pulled down, then it would collapse on itself, thus creating a sphere.
Incorrect.
Take a look for examples of things that work in some instances or locations and do not work in others.
There are examples of that, you know.
The Bonneville Salt Flats only look flat, they do have a curve.
You have again posted an assertion without any back up.
And one location being flat does not prove the entire world is flat.
If you can only occupy one point at a time and that one point looks flat...
And you change locations to a different point and that point looks flat...
Well, you get the picture...
Allow me to have a debate without trying to shut it down before I've proven my point, or you. Because, to me, your point has not been proven, and I'm the one you have to prove it to.
I'm still waiting for you to offer something near a debate.
So far, all you have done is whine and cry because I obliterated your first baseless assertion.
-
I am attempting to have a debate.
So far, its just been "NO U!" coming from your side.
So if I disagree with something you say, its because I disagree with something you say.
It is okay to disagree.
When I said, your just saying words, I mean that you say things without backing it up.
You posted this, remember?
"It is called perception. The earth has a surface area of 510.1 million km˛ and curves at about 8 inches per mile. Just because we don't see the curve doesn't mean its not there. If the earth didn't curve, on a clear day it would be possible to see every thing in a certain direction (Unless your view was obstructed). But for some reason you can't see Europe from the east coast of America."
You posted that without any backing whatsoever...
I, on the other hand, posted very clear and concise IRREFUTABLE explanations for why Europe cannot be seen from the East Cost of the US.
You definitely have things backwards.
The density and buoyancy thing doesn't make sense without a round earth. Because if the earth were a flat plain, that still had the law that heavier things are pulled down, then it would collapse on itself, thus creating a sphere.
Incorrect.
Take a look for examples of things that work in some instances or locations and do not work in others.
There are examples of that, you know.
The Bonneville Salt Flats only look flat, they do have a curve.
You have again posted an assertion without any back up.
And one location being flat does not prove the entire world is flat.
If you can only occupy one point at a time and that one point looks flat...
And you change locations to a different point and that point looks flat...
Well, you get the picture...
Allow me to have a debate without trying to shut it down before I've proven my point, or you. Because, to me, your point has not been proven, and I'm the one you have to prove it to.
I'm still waiting for you to offer something near a debate.
So far, all you have done is whine and cry because I obliterated your first baseless assertion.
I am trying to have an intelligent mature debate here. If you keep insulting me, well I really can't do much but point it out to you, so keep doing that.
If air molecules are the reason to why we can't see across the Atlantic, then that's fair, but it begs the question: How is the horizon so smooth. If the earth were flat, then the horizon would be blurred due to the atmosphere.
Also, the idea of a flat earth would require a creator or god. As I have not been able to find any reason as to how a flat earth could form naturally, it would require someone to create it. Thus making a flat earth just as likely as any other religion.
Will you give me some of those examples "of things that work in some instances or locations and do not work in others," because I really don't know what you mean by that. Probably because I'm REtarded.
For both flat earthers and round earthers, the horizon, or end of vision, is three miles away. In the round earth "theory" the earth curves at eight inches per mile. It is not possible for a human eye to see an eight inch difference from three miles away, and if the horizon was blurred, as would indicate a flat earth, but it is clear and smooth.
-
I am trying to have an intelligent mature debate here. If you keep insulting me, well I really can't do much but point it out to you, so keep doing that.
I have engaged your points.
You can choose to ignore my additional commentary.
If air molecules are the reason to why we can't see across the Atlantic, then that's fair, but it begs the question: How is the horizon so smooth. If the earth were flat, then the horizon would be blurred due to the atmosphere.
That is a baseless assumption.
Also, the idea of a flat earth would require a creator or god. As I have not been able to find any reason as to how a flat earth could form naturally, it would require someone to create it. Thus making a flat earth just as likely as any other religion.
That is a baseless assumption.
Will you give me some of those examples "of things that work in some instances or locations and do not work in others," because I really don't know what you mean by that. Probably because I'm REtarded.
Will a naturally occurring fire keep burning if you put it under water?
For both flat earthers and round earthers, the horizon, or end of vision, is three miles away. In the round earth "theory" the earth curves at eight inches per mile. It is not possible for a human eye to see an eight inch difference from three miles away, and if the horizon was blurred, as would indicate a flat earth, but it is clear and smooth.
This whole horizon blurred stuff is baseless assertion and fallacious argumentation.
-
I am trying to have an intelligent mature debate here. If you keep insulting me, well I really can't do much but point it out to you, so keep doing that.
I have engaged your points.
You can choose to ignore my additional commentary.
If air molecules are the reason to why we can't see across the Atlantic, then that's fair, but it begs the question: How is the horizon so smooth. If the earth were flat, then the horizon would be blurred due to the atmosphere.
That is a baseless assumption.
Also, the idea of a flat earth would require a creator or god. As I have not been able to find any reason as to how a flat earth could form naturally, it would require someone to create it. Thus making a flat earth just as likely as any other religion.
That is a baseless assumption.
Will you give me some of those examples "of things that work in some instances or locations and do not work in others," because I really don't know what you mean by that. Probably because I'm REtarded.
Will a naturally occurring fire keep burning if you put it under water?
For both flat earthers and round earthers, the horizon, or end of vision, is three miles away. In the round earth "theory" the earth curves at eight inches per mile. It is not possible for a human eye to see an eight inch difference from three miles away, and if the horizon was blurred, as would indicate a flat earth, but it is clear and smooth.
This whole horizon blurred stuff is baseless assertion and fallacious argumentation.
Can you explain how earth could naturally form a flat plain. Because that would be extremely interesting. I believe it was you who gave me the argument the facts on air molecules and I was applying that to other things that would occur because of that.
On another note, do flat earthers not believe in other planets? How alone you must feel.
-
Can you explain how earth could naturally form a flat plain. Because that would be extremely interesting.
As of right now, no I cannot.
I believe it was you who gave me the argument the facts on air molecules and I was applying that to other things that would occur because of that.
Okay.
On another note, do flat earthers not believe in other planets? How alone you must feel.
Hold on a sec...
Lemme check...
Yep...
I do not feel very lonely...
Proved you wrong again!
Geez, I am crushing you in this debate!
-
Can you explain how earth could naturally form a flat plain. Because that would be extremely interesting.
As of right now, no I cannot.
I believe it was you who gave me the argument the facts on air molecules and I was applying that to other things that would occur because of that.
Okay.
On another note, do flat earthers not believe in other planets? How alone you must feel.
Hold on a sec...
Lemme check...
Yep...
I do not feel very lonely...
Proved you wrong again!
Geez, I am crushing you in this debate!
i think you got crushed.
1. question: you can not answer that question
2. question: you agreed
3. question: you did not answer the important part of the question you pick the unimportant and therefor also no answer.
-
Can you explain how earth could naturally form a flat plain. Because that would be extremely interesting.
As of right now, no I cannot.
I believe it was you who gave me the argument the facts on air molecules and I was applying that to other things that would occur because of that.
Okay.
On another note, do flat earthers not believe in other planets? How alone you must feel.
Hold on a sec...
Lemme check...
Yep...
I do not feel very lonely...
Proved you wrong again!
Geez, I am crushing you in this debate!
i think you got crushed.
1. question: you can not answer that question
2. question: you agreed
3. question: you did not answer the important part of the question you pick the unimportant and therefor also no answer.
Failing to answer is not an issue you seem to be too concerned about.
Lemme give you an example: What causes gravity?
Agreeing is also not an issue you seem to be too concerned about.
Lemme give you an example : We agree you are a complete asshat.
Every word written by a person here?
I give it the respect it is due.
When I attempt to paraphrase, I read the wailing by asshats like you/Geoff/sokarul/JackAss/etc.
When I provide completely factual responses to the posts exactly as written, I read the wailing by asshats like you/Geoff/sokarul/JackAss/etc.
You, in particular.
I wish you would cease your incessant incontinence and stop shitposting these boards.
-
...
I wish you would cease your incessant incontinence and stop shitposting these boards.
yes i sometimes do not answer a question, but i also do not declare in the same post that i won that debate.
why should i stop posting here, i have a ton of fun here.
always when i read your post (and from other Flattards) i imagine it in a deep southern redneck accent. (like Larry the Cableguy)
;D
-
...
I wish you would cease your incessant incontinence and stop shitposting these boards.
yes i sometimes do not answer a question, but i also do not declare in the same post that i won that debate.
And neither do I.
why should i stop posting here, i have a ton of fun here.
;D
I did not ask you to stop posting.
I asked you to stop SHITPOSTING!
Jesus, learn to fucking read and stop subjecting others to your boring ass meaningless crap.
It may be fun to you, but I can guarantee it is not fun to others...
A person should only be subjected to so many train wrecks in one day, for christ's sake...
-
Can you explain how earth could naturally form a flat plain. Because that would be extremely interesting.
As of right now, no I cannot.
I believe it was you who gave me the argument the facts on air molecules and I was applying that to other things that would occur because of that.
Okay.
On another note, do flat earthers not believe in other planets? How alone you must feel.
Hold on a sec...
Lemme check...
Yep...
I do not feel very lonely...
Proved you wrong again!
Geez, I am crushing you in this debate!
Now on a personal level, why is it easier to believe in a theory which has a basis that you don't know, or understand, or is impossible to explain, than a "theory" that explains its basis, and many of the other questions we have of physics?
And also, what are the things I see through my telescope, if not planets. And if they are just stars, what is the point of them. And, what is a star if the earth is flat?
-
...
I wish you would cease your incessant incontinence and stop shitposting these boards.
yes i sometimes do not answer a question, but i also do not declare in the same post that i won that debate.
And neither do I.
why should i stop posting here, i have a ton of fun here.
;D
I did not ask you to stop posting.
I asked you to stop SHITPOSTING!
Jesus, learn to fucking read and stop subjecting others to your boring ass meaningless crap.
It may be fun to you, but I can guarantee it is not fun to others...
A person should only be subjected to so many train wrecks in one day, for christ's sake...
If I had to say who the king of shitposting was here, my vote would be for you, Mr Complete Manservant, or total lackey. Do you ever post anything worthwhile? I now remember why I decided to take a few months break from these forums, because there is just no quality to the FE arguments and no new thoughts on how a FE model could operate! People come and go here, I think your time to go is way overdue!
-
...
I wish you would cease your incessant incontinence and stop shitposting these boards.
yes i sometimes do not answer a question, but i also do not declare in the same post that i won that debate.
And neither do I.
why should i stop posting here, i have a ton of fun here.
;D
I did not ask you to stop posting.
I asked you to stop SHITPOSTING!
Jesus, learn to fucking read and stop subjecting others to your boring ass meaningless crap.
It may be fun to you, but I can guarantee it is not fun to others...
A person should only be subjected to so many train wrecks in one day, for christ's sake...
If I had to say who the king of shitposting was here, my vote would be for you, Mr Complete Manservant, or total lackey. Do you ever post anything worthwhile? I now remember why I decided to take a few months break from these forums, because there is just no quality to the FE arguments and no new thoughts on how a FE model could operate! People come and go here, I think your time to go is way overdue!
Aww :( But I just got started with him.
-
Now on a personal level, why is it easier to believe in a theory which has a basis that you don't know, or understand, or is impossible to explain, than a "theory" that explains its basis, and many of the other questions we have of physics?
To which theory are you referring?
And also, what are the things I see through my telescope, if not planets. And if they are just stars, what is the point of them. And, what is a star if the earth is flat?
I do not know, specifically, what you are seeing through your telescope, if anything.
If they are what is referred to as planets, then okay.
If they are what is referred to as stars, then okay.
I am unsure of the connection between stars and a flat earth.
-
If I had to say who the king of shitposting was here, my vote would be for you, Mr Complete Manservant, or total lackey. Do you ever post anything worthwhile? I now remember why I decided to take a few months break from these forums, because there is just no quality to the FE arguments and no new thoughts on how a FE model could operate! People come and go here, I think your time to go is way overdue!
Did somebody type something?
-
Now on a personal level, why is it easier to believe in a theory which has a basis that you don't know, or understand, or is impossible to explain, than a "theory" that explains its basis, and many of the other questions we have of physics?
To which theory are you referring?
And also, what are the things I see through my telescope, if not planets. And if they are just stars, what is the point of them. And, what is a star if the earth is flat?
I do not know, specifically, what you are seeing through your telescope, if anything.
If they are what is referred to as planets, then okay.
If they are what is referred to as stars, then okay.
I am unsure of the connection between stars and a flat earth.
I was referring to a round earth. As the theory of gravity explains a round earth, where there is no theory to explain a flat earth. If the earth was flat, then are stars and other planets round? In some flat earth models I've seen, stars are just in a dome around earth and planets as well. This also has no scientific evidence. And if it is not a dome, then the planets and stars have to be round, or else they would also be flat plates constantly facing us in one direction, with a changing surface. And if only the earth is flat, and the planets and stars are round, then why is only the earth round? What laws of physics are different from it than others planets?
-
I was referring to a round earth. As the theory of gravity explains a round earth, where there is no theory to explain a flat earth.
What causes gravity?
How does gravity explain a round earth?
If the earth was flat, then are stars and other planets round?
I do not know.
In some flat earth models I've seen, stars are just in a dome around earth and planets as well. This also has no scientific evidence.
Are you claiming the Babylonians did not represent their understanding of cosmology by depicting a dome?
What do you think of a planetarium?
A planetarium has a perfectly flat surface and a dome overhead.
And if it is not a dome, then the planets and stars have to be round, or else they would also be flat plates constantly facing us in one direction, with a changing surface. And if only the earth is flat... then why is only the earth round? What laws of physics are different from it than others planets?
You are all over the place.
You are starting to answer your own questions again, indicating you are fishing for stuff you do not want to understand or even attempt to understand.
Try taking a breath.
Try using correct punctuation.
Try asking just one question at a time.
Try admitting your mistakes.
I mean, I shortened the second sentence in this last paragraph of yours to demonstrate you own thoughts are contradictory.
-
I was referring to a round earth. As the theory of gravity explains a round earth, where there is no theory to explain a flat earth.
What causes gravity?
How does gravity explain a round earth?
If the earth was flat, then are stars and other planets round?
I do not know.
In some flat earth models I've seen, stars are just in a dome around earth and planets as well. This also has no scientific evidence.
Are you claiming the Babylonians did not represent their understanding of cosmology by depicting a dome?
What do you think of a planetarium?
A planetarium has a perfectly flat surface and a dome overhead.
And if it is not a dome, then the planets and stars have to be round, or else they would also be flat plates constantly facing us in one direction, with a changing surface. And if only the earth is flat... then why is only the earth round? What laws of physics are different from it than others planets?
You are all over the place.
You are starting to answer your own questions again, indicating you are fishing for stuff you do not want to understand or even attempt to understand.
Try taking a breath.
Try using correct punctuation.
Try asking just one question at a time.
Try admitting your mistakes.
I mean, I shortened the second sentence in this last paragraph of yours to demonstrate you own thoughts are contradictory.
Gravity works like this. Every atom is slightly attracted to another. When a large object, the earth, has so many atoms, each are attracted to each other, and eventually it naturally forms a sphere. I just used the dome because its the only thing a flat earther has shown me. Is it possible for you to answer any of my questions? If so, will you? I am just trying to figure out what it is you believe so I can debate on that, because so far you have only insulted my debating skills, and not the points I have made. You continuously go back to my first argument which I have already admitted was poor.
-
I was referring to a round earth. As the theory of gravity explains a round earth, where there is no theory to explain a flat earth.
What causes gravity?
How does gravity explain a round earth?
Just to answer some of your questions : gravity explains a round earth because it is what drove its formation (at least in its late stage). Rocks in the protoplanetary disk around the Sun attracted each other, giving birth to bigger and bigger rocks, and the isotropic nature of gravity entails that "little rocks" were added to the "bigger rock" from all directions, hence the spherical shape.
As for the origin of gravity, I could mention the theory of general relativity, but it seems to trigger a lot of people around here, so I won't. Oops, I did.
-
I was referring to a round earth. As the theory of gravity explains a round earth, where there is no theory to explain a flat earth.
What causes gravity?
How does gravity explain a round earth?
Gravity works like this...
The first question again...
What causes gravity?
Answer that first, then go on to the second question.
I just used the dome because its the only thing a flat earther has shown me. Is it possible for you to answer any of my questions? If so, will you? I am just trying to figure out what it is you believe so I can debate on that, because so far you have only insulted my debating skills, and not the points I have made. You continuously go back to my first argument which I have already admitted was poor.
I have presented a very clear, concise question right in this post.
I will repeat it now.
What causes gravity?
-
I was referring to a round earth. As the theory of gravity explains a round earth, where there is no theory to explain a flat earth.
What causes gravity?
How does gravity explain a round earth?
Gravity works like this...
The first question again...
What causes gravity?
Answer that first, then go on to the second question.
I just used the dome because its the only thing a flat earther has shown me. Is it possible for you to answer any of my questions? If so, will you? I am just trying to figure out what it is you believe so I can debate on that, because so far you have only insulted my debating skills, and not the points I have made. You continuously go back to my first argument which I have already admitted was poor.
I have presented a very clear, concise question right in this post.
I will repeat it now.
What causes gravity?
It has to do with Einstein's theory of relativity. This is a simple way to explain it as the mathematical is to complicated to understand. Imagine a mattress. Nothing on it. Now put a bowling ball on it. The mattress curves downward with the bowling ball at the center. Now if we were to put a smaller ball on the mattress, its curve made on the mattress would be much smaller. The smaller ball would "fall" into the bowling ball.
Now outside of a metaphor, Einstein's theory of relativity is shown as this. Objects with a larger mass, upset the distribution of weight in the universe, thus creating a curve in space time which other objects will "roll into".
Someone who believes in a flat earth would say that this is just a theory. However one who believes in a round earth would say that this is proven, because the earth is round, as are all other celestial objects. And the study of physics is based on this theory, of gravity.
-
This is a simple way to explain it as the mathematical is to complicated to understand. Imagine a mattress. Nothing on it. Now put a bowling ball on it. The mattress curves downward with the bowling ball at the center. Now if we were to put a smaller ball on the mattress, its curve made on the mattress would be much smaller. The smaller ball would "fall" into the bowling ball.
Now outside of a metaphor, Einstein's theory of relativity is shown as this. Objects with a larger mass, upset the distribution of weight in the universe, thus creating a curve in space time which other objects will "roll into".
Someone who believes in a flat earth would say that this is just a theory. However one who believes in a round earth would say that this is proven, because the earth is round, as are all other celestial objects. And the study of physics is based on this theory, of gravity.
None of what you just wrote here provides a cause for gravity.
Plus, your argument that gravity is the cause for round earth is nullified by the subsequent claim that your "cause," is only possible because of a round earth.
Q: What causes gravity?
A: Objects are spheres.
Q: Why are objects spherical by nature?
A: Gravity.
That is the essence of your argument.
-
This is a simple way to explain it as the mathematical is to complicated to understand. Imagine a mattress. Nothing on it. Now put a bowling ball on it. The mattress curves downward with the bowling ball at the center. Now if we were to put a smaller ball on the mattress, its curve made on the mattress would be much smaller. The smaller ball would "fall" into the bowling ball.
Now outside of a metaphor, Einstein's theory of relativity is shown as this. Objects with a larger mass, upset the distribution of weight in the universe, thus creating a curve in space time which other objects will "roll into".
Someone who believes in a flat earth would say that this is just a theory. However one who believes in a round earth would say that this is proven, because the earth is round, as are all other celestial objects. And the study of physics is based on this theory, of gravity.
None of what you just wrote here provides a cause for gravity.
Plus, your argument that gravity is the cause for round earth is nullified by the subsequent claim that your "cause," is only possible because of a round earth.
Q: What causes gravity?
A: Objects are spheres.
Q: Why are objects spherical by nature?
A: Gravity.
That is the essence of your argument.
The cause of gravity is space time's reaction to unequal distribution of weight in the universe. If there was no mass in the universe, there would be no gravity. So the presence of mass creates a disturbance of space time (I explain what happens in the other post)
Where I'm from, a round earth is fact. So while that argument seems flawed to you, everyone I know would agree with it. But yeah, for this debate's purpose, it is flawed. And I swear, if you quote this and agree with it, that would just be you agreeing with me agreeing with you.
-
Yet to be proved wrong.
-
I have trouble figuring out why one person would believe in a flat earth, and another would believe in a round earth. Because when one has an argument with the other, both will always have an answer. Of course, one is not just based on unproven theories and things that a five year old could make up. (I'm talking about the flat earth theory) But I guarantee you that whatever fact you throw at me that proves the earth is flat, I will be able to convince you the earth is round. Hence, my name. Bring it on.
No. You won't.
You will likely be able to refute their argument, but there are lots of people here that do not appear to give a damn about the truth at all.
All they care about is pretending their delusions are true.
You will not be able to convince these people.
-
Yet to be proved wrong.
XD Respect for having a Galileo avatar on the Flat Earth Forum.
-
Yet to be proved wrong.
Yet to prove anything about a flat earth ever being true in the history of time.
-
Science doesn't work by throwing out lone arguments over and over, it works by comparing full models. A complete, or at least more complete FE model (barring the aspects it takes absurd resources to find: such as mapping the world. If you can do that in your free time let me know), should be compared to RET as a whole.
That's the only scientific way to work.
As it is, FET requires fewer assumptions. Of course, to reach that conclusion you'd need to take the time to honestly learn a model, rather than as many REers do here, come along to feel superior and outright lie in pursuit of that goal.
I'm happy if you disagree with me, so long as you give FET a fair and honest examination.
Cut the crap.
FE BS (it is not a theory) takes so many assumptions it isn't funny. Without all these mountains of assumptions there is no explanation for so may things.
RET requires basically none and instead is based upon observations. The only assumptions made to support RET are the same assumptions made for all of science. That the laws of the universe are isotropic and homogeneous, as is the universe as a whole considered on the large scale.
Can I see one of those models?
I link to the one I hold to in my sig.
(It's on a different site to allow guests to query, and because when i made it this site was going through bouts of becoming so slow it was unusable. Just more accessible, but the outline's easy to find there).
Sure. I suspect it is more likely on a different site so you can silence those that don't agree and point out the flaws in your model and so you are free to do as you please without any risk of getting banned.
If you add up the total number of posts you get 208 (unless I missed some), but the latest post is 237239.
Where are the 31 missing posts (13%)? How many of them showed you to be full of shit?
Why do I not have permission to view some of them?
So much for a nice open forum to discuss your ideas...
RET says that there is a ball floating in space, somehow keeping things pulled down on it, with a floating ball of light over it.
Answer me why there is a ball, who made it, is it natural? What is the point of it. Is humanity really so special that we deserve a plate to live on, that defies all laws of physics?
No. We don't. That is why we are stuck with a round Earth orbiting the sun rather than a magic flat one.
Just because you don't know the answers doesn't mean they don't exist. My model explains how the disk is formed and why, and how it does not defy the laws of physics, as well as what and why the Sun works, and why we stay on the disk's surface. (And I don't believe in a conspiracy. the notion of people hiding a Flat Earth is popularised by REers, look at what serious FEers believe and on the wiki etc, it's that there is a space travel conspiracy and a space travel conspiracy alone. Thinking the world is round is no more than an honest mistake. And yet no matter how often I repeat that REers just insist I'm somehow wrong about my own model).
It's not jumping to conclusions just because you haven't seen the workings.
It doesn't explain it, it baselessly asserts it, making assumption after assumption to try and explain it, even contradicting itself.
We don't just insist that your model is wrong, we explain why. You just don't want to admit it.
You repeating the same refuted bullshit wont make it true.
Also, how are we meant to know which FEers are the serious ones? They all say such obvious crap it isn't funny, you included.
-
ProveMeWrong, you seem to not be very interested in debate.
Rather than really respond to JRowe you just kept repeating the same crap.
You didn't seem to ask her to present any of it here, you just dismissed it as if it didn't exist.
Did you even bother looking at her link?
You demand explanations from other people yet need to be asked repeatedly before providing them yourself.
Similarly, I don't think you bothered with Physical observers links either.
-
There are country roads all over the the Midwest US where a person could drive 10 miles make a right turn, drive 10 miles make another right turn, drive 10 miles make another right turn, drive 10 miles and end up where he/she started.
Right angle, not right. Big difference.
Density and buoyancy.
Density doesn't explain why things fall.
Buoyancy requires another force to act.
Those, along with gravity, tell us why things fall and why some thing stop falling or go up instead.
They can also explain separation in a centrifuge when considered with inertia or the apparent centrifugal force.
For buoyancy, in the last image, you can eliminate the word gravity as that is not necessary as far as I am concerned.
And what you are concerned doesn't matter.
Without gravity you don't have that buoyancy. Buoyancy is entirely a reaction to another force.
You do realize that is a totally fallacious argument.
No it isn't.
If the horizon is merely a result of limited visibility, it would be a hazy blurry line as it is from high altitudes. (No, you can't appeal to perspective, it remains a sharp line, at least from normal height, even when using a telescope that is properly focused). This is because the limited visible results in things blurring into the atmosphere as it scatters the light (well, technically the other way around).
There is no way to produce a sharp line from limited visibility.
In order to produce a sharp line you need to be looking at the edge of something. So that means that either Earth is curved and the horizon is formed from its edge, or the flat Earth is really tiny, only a few km in radius.
What causes gravity?
Mass resulting in the curvature of space time.
How does gravity explain a round earth?
The mutual attraction between the clumps of matter cause it to clump together into larger and larger clumps.
These clumps will obtain a roughly spherical shape as non-circular shapes will collapse due to the lower gravitational potential for a spherical shape.
A planetarium has a perfectly flat surface and a dome overhead.
And shows that Earth is round as moving away from Polaris doesn't bring the southern cross into view, or match the angle.
-
ProveMeWrong, you seem to not be very interested in debate.
Rather than really respond to JRowe you just kept repeating the same crap.
You didn't seem to ask her to present any of it here, you just dismissed it as if it didn't exist.
Did you even bother looking at her link?
You demand explanations from other people yet need to be asked repeatedly before providing them yourself.
Similarly, I don't think you bothered with Physical observers links either.
I provided many examples, facts and evidence supporting my claims, whereas she never answered one of my questions. Debating is all I'm here for. If I was just going to come here to get disagree with people, that would be a waste of everyone's energy.
I did in fact go to their links, but somehow I'm still not convinced what they say is true. So I plan to keep arguing.
-
I have trouble figuring out why one person would believe in a flat earth, and another would believe in a round earth. Because when one has an argument with the other, both will always have an answer. Of course, one is not just based on unproven theories and things that a five year old could make up. (I'm talking about the flat earth theory) But I guarantee you that whatever fact you throw at me that proves the earth is flat, I will be able to convince you the earth is round. Hence, my name. Bring it on.
Look out your window.
It is called the Bonneville Salt Flats, not the Bonneville Salt Rounds.
Kansas is indeed flatter than a pancake.
If my pancake was flat I would take it back, and get a fluffier one, in fact a pancake has just about the right curvature, taller in the center, then on the edges.
-
I have trouble figuring out why one person would believe in a flat earth, and another would believe in a round earth. Because when one has an argument with the other, both will always have an answer. Of course, one is not just based on unproven theories and things that a five year old could make up. (I'm talking about the flat earth theory) But I guarantee you that whatever fact you throw at me that proves the earth is flat, I will be able to convince you the earth is round. Hence, my name. Bring it on.
Look out your window.
It is called the Bonneville Salt Flats, not the Bonneville Salt Rounds.
Kansas is indeed flatter than a pancake.
If my pancake was flat I would take it back, and get a fluffier one, in fact a pancake has just about the right curvature, taller in the center, then on the edges.
I know your intentions are good, but could people stop using a pancake as an example for a flat Earth and a round earth?
-
You admitted flat earthers give facts, so I guess you'll just ignore them because you do not want to be convinced?
Yes. They do occasionally give facts.
However they will often completley misrepresent these facts to pretend it shows Earth being round.
For example, you gave us facts about 4 tropical storms.
2 were spinning one way, 2 were spinning the other.
The direction of spin, where the different hemisphere spin in different directions, support a spinning round Earth.
But you also lied about 2 of them.
You stated one (which was near Fiji) was near Fuji and in the northern hemisphere.
You stated another (which was near Japan) was near New Zealand and in the southern hemisphere.
Your blatant lies do not support a spinning round Earth, because they are misrepresenting the true physical nature of Earth.
Another fact you like bringing up (but I would say explained a lot better here) is that if you consider a rotational reference frame, like one centred on the point of a spinning circle/sphere, any entity inside it will experience an apparent force causing it to move away from the surface.
This fact, along with people weighing objects while moving at different speeds, classified as the Eötvös effect, once again supports a spinning round Earth.
Your blatant misrepresentations showing a tiny ball spinning very very quickly does not support a spinning round Earth, but it is a blatant misrepresentation of the speed and size.
Your facts support a spinning round Earth. Your blatant lies and misrepresentation of these facts do not.
All my facts are laid out in this thread, I'm not repeating them over and over, meet you here:
And it has been pointed out in that thread why your arguments are pure bullshit.
Gravity is a theory, not a fact. I thought you were going to give facts? Biogenesis is a fact, or a principle/law of science because it was proven over and over with scientific testing. Gravity is still in a theory state because it really can't be proven to exist, much speculation, but nothing that can move it off the "assertion" list. What else do you have?
No. Gravity is a theory because it has been repeatedly tested and found to work.
Science doesn't prove things, it only makes models and tries to use them to predict things or disprove things.
There is no law of bio-genesis in science, just in pseudoscience.
It is also something that is quite literally impossible to prove.
However, rational analysis of it indicates it is quite likely to be wrong as it would require either no life at all (which is easy to prove wrong), or an infinite regress of life, which would be inconsistent with the big bang.
A theory is the highest place something can have in science.
A law is merely a mathematical relation which is part of the theory, for example, the universal law of gravitation F=GMm/r^2.
So there is actually a law of gravity.
What you are trying to suggest gravity is would be a hypothesis.
Regardless, all this is irrelavent.
The simple fact is that there is something which accelerates us towards Earth at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2. All that is required to counter the spinning of Earth (at the equator) is 0.03 m/s^2.
So whatever you sub in in place of gravity more than compensates for the spin.
This has all been explained to you before.
-
None of what you just wrote here provides a cause for gravity.
Plus, your argument that gravity is the cause for round earth is nullified by the subsequent claim that your "cause," is only possible because of a round earth.
Q: What causes gravity?
A: Objects are spheres.
Please show where ProveMeWrong claimed that the cause of gravity is Objects are spheres.
Where did he "claim that the 'cause', is only possible because of a round earth."?
I may easily have missed it, but just where did ProveMeWrong claim that?
Now answer me this. I imagine that you believe in electrostatic forces.
Please explain the fundamental cause of electrostatic attraction.
No answer like "opposite charges attract" will do,
because that is no more the fundamental cause of electrostatic attraction
than saying that "masses attract each other" is for gravitation.
And gravitation has been tested and measured experimentally, just as has electrostatic attraction.
Your choosing to deny the reality of those 60 or more sets of measurements is of absolutely no consequence!
Now, if you don't believe in gravitation and don't believe in UA,
what exactly causes heavy (than air) objects to fall down, whether they be in the air or a vacuum?
-
Can I see one of those models?
I link to the one I hold to in my sig.
(It's on a different site to allow guests to query, and because when i made it this site was going through bouts of becoming so slow it was unusable. Just more accessible, but the outline's easy to find there).
I read quite a bit of your explanation. Aether is not the same as relativistic space-time. In fact, in was the failure to find evidence of aether that helped to propel the discovery of relativity. http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters_2017_Jan_1/origins/index.html
By the way, your DE model relies on lots of assumptions, such as the assumption that several hundred thousand people (million?) in astronomy, telecommunications, physics, engineering, and rival governments are all cooperating in a secret global conspiracy.
-
By the way, your DE model relies on lots of assumptions, such as the assumption that several hundred thousand people (million?) in astronomy, telecommunications, physics, engineering, and rival governments are all cooperating in a secret global conspiracy.
He got you there jrowe.