The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Sphericalearth on November 25, 2015, 06:43:12 AM

Title: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: Sphericalearth on November 25, 2015, 06:43:12 AM
First of all as this is a debate I will ask a simple question as we Need something to start a debate, and I expect a direct answer to that question as this forum is not a joke as claimed by moderators. Any other member who do not have direct answer to my question must not interfere as I want to keep it professional. As I believe that earth is sphere its your duty to prove me wrong by giving exact answers to my doubts as a teacher does with student.
Anyone who have done enough research on flatearth model can reply to me so I know that someone is listening to me, and I can start serious debate.
And I would like to keep this debate strictly confined to science I will not be satisfied by any religious theory. Hope you guys will understand that, and I get a very quick reply from a hardcore fact based flatearther.

Fact based and intellectual RE supporters are also welcome to share their views about the topics being discussed in debate and in context, and can post their views in support or else providing the facts/a phenomenon/observation in opposition to the matter being discussed in debate so to make your points very clear to readers.

Hope you guys feel me and keep this debate a healthy discussion. Thank you.
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on November 25, 2015, 11:45:39 AM
The one problem with your thread is that science needs to be taught in order. Under RET, for example, you can't explain tides without first explaining gravity and orbits. You can't ask a question and immediately expect an intelligible answer: you'd have to know what underpins first.
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: Sphericalearth on November 26, 2015, 11:53:25 PM
Thank you JRoweSkeptic for reply. So we can start debate now. Hope this debate will clear my doubts. I understood what u want to convey by your reply so, pls suggest me from where should we begin. As u said to understand tides we should know about gravity and orbits, as far as I know in flat earth theory earth is considered to b disc accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 upwards and sun and moon rotates or I better say hover over the earth. So that acceleration gives us the feeling of gravity. M I right till now?

So some points I would like to clear before we go on to main discussion:-
1. Do u consider sun and moon also flat?
2. Sun is closer to earth and much smaller in size ?
3. Moon is even closer to earth then the sun but of slightly bigger then sun or comparable to sun?

Pls clarify above points in the order they were asked. I have gone through many articles already and thus I reached the above stated conclusions.
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on November 27, 2015, 05:38:52 AM
Thank you JRoweSkeptic for reply. So we can start debate now. Hope this debate will clear my doubts. I understood what u want to convey by your reply so, pls suggest me from where should we begin. As u said to understand tides we should know about gravity and orbits, as far as I know in flat earth theory earth is considered to b disc accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 upwards and sun and moon rotates or I better say hover over the earth. So that acceleration gives us the feeling of gravity. M I right till now?
Some hold that, some do not. There's more than one FE model: I adhere to DET where the idea of universal acceleration is rejected (it requires infinite energy).

Quote
1. Do u consider sun and moon also flat?
2. Sun is closer to earth and much smaller in size ?
3. Moon is even closer to earth then the sun but of slightly bigger then sun or comparable to sun?
Yes to the first, the second two are trickier to answer under DET, and many FE models; many of those that accept a dome, for example, claim many celestial objects are in fact just reflections.

Quote
Pls clarify above points in the order they were asked. I have gone through many articles already and thus I reached the above stated conclusions.
If you'd read much of the forum, you'd have seen that there are multiple models proposed.
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: Sphericalearth on November 28, 2015, 06:03:24 AM
Thanx JRoweSkeptic for replying.
I've also read the theory proposed by u, actually the aether part was quite interesting as I also personally believe that (only the aether part), as no proof generally exists till now depicting the exact nature of space, we can propose our theories, some believe it to b a fabric but as its 3D, aether fits with density and concentration difference concept. But the picture u posted (hand made model) of DET please upload another one that is well labeled and explain much more, I only see poles above and below the sun and moon ( in fact sun drawn bigger then moon).  And lines crossing them I didn't got your imagination, I will appreciate if u do so.

Well the above said content is not the part of debate as I don't know much about DET, I can't comment on it right now but I will b happy to discuss in near future.

I picked up most general points from all the FET models. But everyone of those theories are based on misconceptions in the mind of developer, I.e. The concepts are not clear about the world renown RET, the discussions going in the forum calling it RET, most of the people calling it RET I bet don't even know about the shape that is oblate spheroid of the earth .

Please this is my req to all those people who make a theory only keeping a certain points in mind, and then defend it, stop doing that. A theory is only acceptable if it satisfy all observations/phenomenon and facts and are based on thorough research, not only imagination.

Well coming back to debate as my first observation of FET ( sun moon also flat) was flagged true and I believe most of flat earthers believe that. I will point some flaws in this very basic point claimed by all flat earthers, that will prove this whole theory wrong, that sun is like a torch pointing some of the area of the earth. That perfectly explains the concept of day night. Some even made concepts about weather that's fine.

But actually u guys missed a universal truth, of geometry I.e. A disc when looked upon sideways seem elliptical. But sun/moon looks circular at every time of the day/ night resp..

And guys explained solar eclipse very well. But none I've found explaining lunar eclipse all says that shadow satellite of sun blocks moon. And again they say that satellite object moves in very close orbit to sun, is that a joke , they mean that moon is even closer to sun at the time of eclipse then that of shadow satellite, wait they don't stop here they say that all three are aligned, lol even a bigger joke .
If all three are aligned during lunar eclipse there should b no day on the other half of earth.

And further more 24 hrs daylight is not explained over Antarctica, it's not even 24 hrs, days extend to months there. And so as with night. They explain it via multiple sun theory lmao.
It's like create anything out of your mind and add it to your theory without any fact proving it.
Optical illusions are refered to 2nd sun.
It's ok I will let u guys live in imagination.

Guys one thing I will point here, many people like u send your kids to school , where they learn this RET and other stuff ,and some of those kids are currently working in NASA, And other space agencies around the world. Some even own private observatories. Are they all mad? They have done Ph.D. In that area of study, Ph.D. It's like independent research with full mind and hence got worldwide recognition.

Start home schooling your kids I am sure school is also a govt conspiracy to make u follow wrong facts right from beginning. ;D rofl.

Making a hoax theory and misleading others is easy my friends, but some people have spent their entire lifetime giving mankind light of knowledge, at least respect them by just not saying it a govt. conspiracy.

There go your first and very basic point.
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on November 28, 2015, 07:12:40 AM
I picked up most general points from all the FET models.
The uniplanar FE model is flawed, by my reckoning. 24 hour sunlight (which I've experienced myself) is easily explained under DET: a result of the same tilting that causes the seasons. The solar eclipse is the moon blocking the Sun, the lunar is the moon looking past the Sun, so its light would pass through more air and appear red.

On the DE diagram, it won't make sense unless you have read the accompanying text.
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: 29silhouette on November 28, 2015, 08:07:20 AM
Start home schooling your kids I am sure school is also a govt conspiracy to make u follow wrong facts right from beginning. ;D rofl.
Just a quick question, are you typing your posts from a small mobile device, or using a computer?
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: Jadyyn on November 28, 2015, 08:57:46 AM
I picked up most general points from all the FET models.
The uniplanar FE model is flawed, by my reckoning. 24 hour sunlight (which I've experienced myself) is easily explained under DET: a result of the same tilting that causes the seasons. The solar eclipse is the moon blocking the Sun, the lunar is the moon looking past the Sun, so its light would pass through more air and appear red.

On the DE diagram, it won't make sense unless you have read the accompanying text.
I will discuss the Moon in more detail in the "DET - discussions" thread. What you say doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on November 28, 2015, 10:27:40 AM
I picked up most general points from all the FET models.
The uniplanar FE model is flawed, by my reckoning. 24 hour sunlight (which I've experienced myself) is easily explained under DET: a result of the same tilting that causes the seasons. The solar eclipse is the moon blocking the Sun, the lunar is the moon looking past the Sun, so its light would pass through more air and appear red.

On the DE diagram, it won't make sense unless you have read the accompanying text.
I will discuss the Moon in more detail in the "DET - discussions" thread. What you say doesn't make sense.
I'm following that thread, you don't need to bring it up in another, that reeks of dishonest tactics.
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: Kirk Johnson on November 28, 2015, 06:45:12 PM
The uniplanar FE model is flawed, by my reckoning. 24 hour sunlight (which I've experienced myself) is easily explained under DET: a result of the same tilting that causes the seasons. The solar eclipse is the moon blocking the Sun, the lunar is the moon looking past the Sun, so its light would pass through more air and appear red.

At least you recognize the FE model is flawed. However, bringing up DE here is to no avail: It lacks recognition from both RE and FE proponents. Unless you can present a final model - which you cannot - then I don't think you'll get anywhere.

DE is not fundamented on the evidence or the observations: It's purely a collection of ad hoc explanations that are completely incoherent and contradictory with scientific knowledge and observations to date. Eclipses are already fully understood and explained by the current model - Round Earth. Such explanations are completely coherent with themselves and the observational evidence.

Selenelions, which would "disprove" the current model, actually confirms it. The fact that they only happen at early sunrise or at sunset, when both the sun and full moon - Always a full moon - are near the horizon line: It confirms the RE model via the already known refraction sunlight suffers when they enter our atmosphere.


Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on November 29, 2015, 02:25:37 AM
At least you recognize the FE model is flawed. However, bringing up DE here is to no avail: It lacks recognition from both RE and FE proponents. Unless you can present a final model - which you cannot - then I don't think you'll get anywhere.
You mean, like what I've done?

Quote
DE is not fundamented on the evidence or the observations: It's purely a collection of ad hoc explanations that are completely incoherent and contradictory with scientific knowledge and observations to date.
A completely and openly false claim. How about you try to learn a model before spreading bullshit? Do you really struggle that much with making an honest argument, that you need to provide unjustified lies?
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: Sphericalearth on November 30, 2015, 11:21:31 PM
Thanx for the replies but, none of them got answers, u people are really good in taking a debate off the context, did any one of you guys except JRoweSkeptic even bothered to read my argument. Simply replied, u Guys didn't even read the topic heading. If u r a flatearther its good just give answers is it too tough. I've made very clear in my first post that no nonsense off the topic statements would b said in this thread. Now i am forced to think even moderators are making a joke of this forum.

And what's the reason to ban me, my two devices just got banned from this forum , but I have ways to get back no worries.

Hope I get a real answer following my argument soon.
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 01, 2015, 01:58:44 AM
You have not been banned.  If you were banned, you would not be able to log in on your account.  It is likely that your ISP issued you an IP address that had previously been banned or something like that.
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: Ihateyouall on December 01, 2015, 02:29:38 AM
Sphericalearth, you'll find that most FE Theorists hold debates in the same manner as JRoweSkeptic. The only hope to preserve their argument is to get off-topic and start attacking the person instead of their argument.
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 01, 2015, 04:26:38 AM
Thanx for the replies but, none of them got answers, u people are really good in taking a debate off the context, did any one of you guys except JRoweSkeptic even bothered to read my argument. Simply replied, u Guys didn't even read the topic heading. If u r a flatearther its good just give answers is it too tough. I've made very clear in my first post that no nonsense off the topic statements would b said in this thread. Now i am forced to think even moderators are making a joke of this forum.

And what's the reason to ban me, my two devices just got banned from this forum , but I have ways to get back no worries.

Hope I get a real answer following my argument soon.

You can't have a debate on FET unless you take the time to learn an FE model. What exactly is it you expect?
If you're not going to take the time to learn a model, why should I watse time on you?

Quote
Sphericalearth, you'll find that most FE Theorists hold debates in the same manner as JRoweSkeptic. The only hope to preserve their argument is to get off-topic and start attacking the person instead of their argument.
You mean, expecting someone to take the time to learn what they're talking about is off-topic? Pathetic.
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: Ihateyouall on December 01, 2015, 09:25:31 AM
I'll avoid an easy insult and just ask a question instead. Are you implying that all mathematical data about gravity and all simulations on how it work are false and should be discredited?
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 01, 2015, 09:44:41 AM
I'll avoid an easy insult and just ask a question instead. Are you implying that all mathematical data about gravity and all simulations on how it work are false and should be discredited?
The data, no. You're confusing raw data with theory: what we observe directly, what we calculate about that, only an idiot could question it. What matters is the proposed explanation for those observations. Gravity as a theory simply makes too many assumptions: and there are alternative explanations for what it is said to do.
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: Ihateyouall on December 01, 2015, 09:47:32 AM
Please explain further. What fits perfectly in place of gravity but isn't gravity?
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 01, 2015, 10:20:51 AM
Please explain further. What fits perfectly in place of gravity but isn't gravity?
I'm not explaining my model in detail when it's available if you want to read it.
What matters is the explanation. Gravity says something very specific: that mass bends spacetime, and that this draws things nearby closer. It's incoherent. All that matters is an alternative explanation.
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: Kirk Johnson on December 01, 2015, 12:17:48 PM
Gravity says something very specific: that mass bends spacetime, and that this draws things nearby closer. It's incoherent. All that matters is an alternative explanation.

You just don't understand gravity. Which is natural, as you defend DE trash
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 01, 2015, 12:19:14 PM
Gravity says something very specific: that mass bends spacetime, and that this draws things nearby closer. It's incoherent. All that matters is an alternative explanation.

You just don't understand gravity. Which is natural, as you defend DE trash

So, never any ability to say why what I've said is wrong, just pointless assertion. WHAT THE FUCK IS THE POINT OF YOU?
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: Kirk Johnson on December 01, 2015, 12:23:03 PM
Gravity says something very specific: that mass bends spacetime, and that this draws things nearby closer. It's incoherent. All that matters is an alternative explanation.

You just don't understand gravity. Which is natural, as you defend DE trash

So, never any ability to say why what I've said is wrong, just pointless assertion. WHAT THE FUCK IS THE POINT OF YOU?

Not pointless. Go learn gravitation then you'll see your mistake
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: Sphericalearth on December 01, 2015, 11:01:22 PM
actually i was thinking right about this site and forum its a joke!

u only answered my one ques with a DET saying FET is flawed its okk , and no explanation is given with FET, this claims no FET expert is there in his forum/
my other questions were simply ignored, and nobody bothered to read my argument.

well its not u my friends wasting time on ppl like us who even showed interest in reading this bullshit forum.
nobody gives a shit about FET and we showed some interest u should be thankful instead that we are giving our time in reading and asking question, and u should be grateful that we even asked question because that mean we read the topic and thus we got question.

from 7 billion people only few million ppl know that there is even something like FET, and such a behavior of saying that learn about FET first then ask question, are u a fool why would we even look at this forum.

jrowskeptic dont take this personal as i know only u have the balls to answer and defend fairly and you r so desperate fr DET . but this is fr all flatearthers one last question from me,

DO YOU WANT RECOGNITION OR NOT.

if the answer is yes start fair debates and try to answer a person who is wasting his time due to curiosity, because he dont need u, but u need him.

and seriously jroa, m i not banned? my third device just got banned when i was logged in, and i was kicked off server in middle,
i changed my ip and m again able to login.

what to expect even moderators do not want fair debates. u guys want to build a black hole fr ppl who only believe FET. and dont want to look outside. okk have fun mingling with each other only lol. this was my last post i will ot come back.

if anyone have balls to answer other questions i asked answer them
i asked 3 question but no answer recieved.

well i expect nothing from u guys all i wanted was a fair debate, and i got lousy comments.
will not waste any more time on this bullshit. keep this FET to yourself nobody wants it.
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 02, 2015, 03:49:10 AM

and seriously jroa, m i not banned? my third device just got banned when i was logged in, and i was kicked off server in middle,
i changed my ip and m again able to login.


I don't think it is even possible to ban your IP without banning your user name as well unless your IP was attached to another username that was actually banned, such as a spambot.  Spambots are very common here, and I do ban their IPs along with their username and email address to make it harder for the bots to make more accounts.  I think I banned almost 600 spambots in the past month alone, and the site has been running much better lately.  Unfortunately, some ISPs might assign banned IP addresses to legitimate people.  If the evil people who create spambots would stop their evil doings, we could unban the IPs, but this is likely to never happen. 
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 02, 2015, 06:23:19 AM
DET is an FE model. if all any of you have is pointless assertion and a refusal to learn, then the problem is yours, not ours.
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on December 02, 2015, 10:31:20 AM
DET is an FE model. if all any of you have is pointless assertion and a refusal to learn, then the problem is yours, not ours.
Actually, the problem is yours. The idea dies with you if it cant grow and propagate. FET has some following, meaning it will live even if most FE proponents stop promoting it. DEF on the other hand has no following. If JRowe stops promoting DEF, then it dies.
It is not a problem for anyone if that happens.

Therefore, it really is only your problem if people dont learn it.
If you know this, then you should actually promote your idea and not dictate it.
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 02, 2015, 10:42:06 AM
DET is an FE model. if all any of you have is pointless assertion and a refusal to learn, then the problem is yours, not ours.
Actually, the problem is yours. The idea dies with you if it cant grow and propagate. FET has some following, meaning it will live even if most FE proponents stop promoting it. DEF on the other hand has no following. If JRowe stops promoting DEF, then it dies.
It is not a problem for anyone if that happens.

Therefore, it really is only your problem if people dont learn it.
If you know this, then you should actually promote your idea and not dictate it.

I promote it, but I can't promote it to someone who doesn't want to learn it. Why is that difficult to understand?
The means to learn it are there. I can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn.
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on December 03, 2015, 12:23:38 AM
Quote
I promote it, but I can't promote it to someone who doesn't want to learn it. Why is that difficult to understand?
The means to learn it are there. I can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn.

You dont seem to have convinced many old school flat earthers about your theory, so I dont see it being just a spherical earth proponent issue.
Maybe you should revise your strategy to promote it.
I have seen lots of people not being happy with the answers you give them.

If I may suggest.
Create a personal wiki on word or where ever of all the explanations concerning the different aspects of your hypothesis.
Every time they ask, just copy past it across. It saves you time, and everyone gets less frustrated.

When people ask you a question that you have not yet considered or finished working on. Tell them so, and place the question in a personal list. There is no shame in not knowing something, especially if you are still working on something new.
It is a better use of your time to work on your hypothesis and the unanswered questions than arguing something that is incomplete.

It is just a suggestion, use it as you wish. I am still very skeptical of your hypothesis, but I definitely respect your effort in discovery.
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: eggyk on December 03, 2015, 06:05:28 AM
DET is an FE model. if all any of you have is pointless assertion and a refusal to learn, then the problem is yours, not ours.
Actually, the problem is yours. The idea dies with you if it cant grow and propagate. FET has some following, meaning it will live even if most FE proponents stop promoting it. DEF on the other hand has no following. If JRowe stops promoting DEF, then it dies.
It is not a problem for anyone if that happens.

Therefore, it really is only your problem if people dont learn it.
If you know this, then you should actually promote your idea and not dictate it.

I promote it, but I can't promote it to someone who doesn't want to learn it. Why is that difficult to understand?
The means to learn it are there. I can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn.

Every single time somebody attempts to learn a part of your model out of interest, you say one of the following:

Quote
"Read the model"
Quote
"You haven't even bothered reading the model"
Quote
"DET explains everything better so you're wrong"
Quote
"once you read my theory in full it will be trivial"

You simply don't have a following. Try to dumb it down for the general population and you may get the support that you want and obviously need to get your theory off the ground.

If somebody asks you the basis of your model, you could explain in two sentences. If we ask you to explain gravity to us in your theory, you could say "changes in the thickness of aether (a field propagating all space) causes the gravitational force"
^i know thats wrong, its just sort of how it should be laid out.

If DET is as good as you think it is, points from it should be easy to extract.
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 03, 2015, 01:38:43 PM
Quote
You dont seem to have convinced many old school flat earthers about your theory
What flat earthers? You know this site is mostly populated by trolls, right? I'm gathering interest.

Quote
Every single time somebody attempts to learn a part of your model out of interest, you say one of the following:
Because I'm not interested in repeating myself and explaining the basics from scratch. The fundamentals are explained, people should learn the model rather than demanding I waste time repeating myself. if they aren't going to dedicate any time to learning the model, why should I waste time on them?

Quote
If DET is as good as you think it is, points from it should be easy to extract.
If I was debating with honest people, sure. Instead everything I say will be met with demands that I explain it all from first principles, and then whine about demands for evidence and justification, both of which are length topics that cannot be explained in a handful of lines. And trying to demonstrate a question may quickly be answered by giving what you openly admit is not accurate is a perfect demonstration of your lie.
The answers are there. Read them, or don't: but if you choose not to, the ignorance is your choice and your whining won't change that.

How about you think about what you'are actually saying for once?
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: Sphericalearth on August 21, 2019, 12:58:39 PM
Can anyone answer my questions now ?
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on August 21, 2019, 07:15:16 PM
Can anyone answer my questions now ?

Why would you think that you would get an answer now?
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: Mattathome on August 22, 2019, 12:16:22 AM
Indeed.  That you dug up a four year old thread does not garner victory in your debate, nor does it prove any argument on your part.

I've lurked on these forums for just a short time and I'll be honest it's mostly for entertainment value.  I could attempt to engage as many others have done in debate, or questions, but I've read enough into the Flat Earth to know what the answers will be.  Flat Earth is a belief structure entirely based on all of these individuals who know beyond any shadow of any doubt that they have been lied to by...almost everyone else.  They have taken it upon themselves to open doors and seek what will reinforce those beliefs, be it a religious, physical, and/or a scientific proof.  They go through each day knowing this so firmly and so absolutely that the burden of proof must fall to everyone else to prove them wrong.  I've read many threads here on this website and these forums exist as a medium to that ideology. This is their home turf and you will never disprove that no matter the argument, at least from their perspective.

For example, I could do much the same thing with a theory I can create based on my own observations and surroundings.  I was born and raised in southern Florida, and my claim is that there is no such thing as snow, it does not exist.  I know there are pictures, and predictable weather patterns, and seasons, and a whole basis of science and discovery behind it, but yet I have never experienced this so called snow.  I have been lied to.  The Earth is a tropic paradise, I see it each day.  This must be a conspiracy driven by evil intent and insatiable greed.  This fakery of snow so people can spend billions on clothing, ski equipment, snowmobiles, and mountain resorts must come to light.  So I venture forth in the world (to my front porch) with my loyal followers (my chihuahua and my cat) to enlighten the masses.  Many laugh, and offer proof that I scoff upon.  You accept being a blind fool I say.  Some bring me actual snow in a desperate attempt of paragon evidence.  Bah! I say again, I can create the same thing from the freezer in my kitchen. How could magical icicles fall from the sky? It's never happened!  On and on, I can create a solution against any forth coming evidence that snow is real, and for as long as I remain in southern Florida and base all my ideas on my surroundings I can never be disproven in any way.  Snowless Earth wins again, and again...and again.

The point is, you can take all of the most prominent hierarchy of The Flat Earth Society, load them into a rocketship and launch them into Space.  Have them all put on spacesuits and flush them out of the airlock.  They will all look down upon the Earth below and say, "Yup, looks pretty flat to me! I was right all along!"  Matter of fact, I've read that a man built a homemade Rocket last year and did almost exactly that.  Flat Earth is like watching a train-wreck in slow motion, like tuning into Keeping up with the Kardashians every week and you are all but left with wondering "How the Fuck did this happen?"

Though for myself, I'm glad we have the Flat Earth Society in certain respects.  Reading these debates I've learned so much more about Science, Physics, and the Cosmos beyond than I ever have in all my years of schooling.  In regards to the Flat Earth Theory itself I find it is endlessly fascinating to watch how boundless the human imagination can go.  I don't take it upon myself to debunk the FET, I don't feel the need to. As a repair technician I've seen all kinds of people do crazy things.  Try as I might to prevent breakdowns and costly repairs it always happens again and again.  In my line of work we call it Building a Better Idiot.  Here, you can present what you will but if you think for a second that you can present evidence so compelling that you'll change the hearts and minds of these believers then you are in for a long haul.  My one suggestion is that if you really, truly seek to engage and challenge what these people believe, then you must learn their perspective.  Otherwise be silent and enjoy the show.

All of that being said, I'm sorry Sphericalearth, but you lose and will always lose in this medium.  Coming back with a haughty

Can anyone answer my questions now ?

Of a four year old thread will not resolve or convince anyone.  I fail to see why you even bothered.

 
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on August 22, 2019, 11:50:57 AM
What is the circumference of the DE disk?
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: Mikey T. on August 22, 2019, 05:20:19 PM
What is the circumference of the DE disk?
Hate to add to the necro thread but to answer your question since I have not seen JROWE around lately, the DE model at that time had a circumference near the same as the Globe model, so around 25000 miles.  There may have been a bit of a difference but I believe the intent was that the model matched more closely to reality as far as distances.  Many FE models have to stretch and skew continents and oceans  the further South you go.  The DE model tried to address that along with Southern circumpolar star paths.  It got a little weird around the equator with some teleportation like effect going on and the Sun being in the middle between the two discs with a lensing effect to make the sun appear in the sky.  I don't know all of those particulars and he probably made more changes beyond the point at which I was paying attention. 
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on August 23, 2019, 09:54:18 AM
What is the circumference of the DE disk?
Hate to add to the necro thread but to answer your question since I have not seen JROWE around lately, the DE model at that time had a circumference near the same as the Globe model, so around 25000 miles.  There may have been a bit of a difference but I believe the intent was that the model matched more closely to reality as far as distances.  Many FE models have to stretch and skew continents and oceans  the further South you go.  The DE model tried to address that along with Southern circumpolar star paths.  It got a little weird around the equator with some teleportation like effect going on and the Sun being in the middle between the two discs with a lensing effect to make the sun appear in the sky.  I don't know all of those particulars and he probably made more changes beyond the point at which I was paying attention.

Then the DE model has the same problem as most flat earth models; namely the length of the equator. See, if the distance from the central(North?) pole of a flat earth disk to the Equator is 6200 miles. But a circle with a radius of such a distance should have a circumference of 39,000 miles. How can the Equator then be only 25,000 miles?
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: John Davis on August 23, 2019, 01:11:27 PM
What is the circumference of the DE disk?
Hate to add to the necro thread but to answer your question since I have not seen JROWE around lately, the DE model at that time had a circumference near the same as the Globe model, so around 25000 miles.  There may have been a bit of a difference but I believe the intent was that the model matched more closely to reality as far as distances.  Many FE models have to stretch and skew continents and oceans  the further South you go.  The DE model tried to address that along with Southern circumpolar star paths.  It got a little weird around the equator with some teleportation like effect going on and the Sun being in the middle between the two discs with a lensing effect to make the sun appear in the sky.  I don't know all of those particulars and he probably made more changes beyond the point at which I was paying attention.

Then the DE model has the same problem as most flat earth models; namely the length of the equator. See, if the distance from the central(North?) pole of a flat earth disk to the Equator is 6200 miles. But a circle with a radius of such a distance should have a circumference of 39,000 miles. How can the Equator then be only 25,000 miles?
Most flat earth models have the same length of the equator...
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: sandokhan on August 23, 2019, 01:35:59 PM
Then the DE model has the same problem as most flat earth models; namely the length of the equator. See, if the distance from the central(North?) pole of a flat earth disk to the Equator is 6200 miles. But a circle with a radius of such a distance should have a circumference of 39,000 miles. How can the Equator then be only 25,000 miles?

The RE have the SAME problem as well:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78333.msg2114379#msg2114379
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: sokarul on August 23, 2019, 08:12:22 PM
Then the DE model has the same problem as most flat earth models; namely the length of the equator. See, if the distance from the central(North?) pole of a flat earth disk to the Equator is 6200 miles. But a circle with a radius of such a distance should have a circumference of 39,000 miles. How can the Equator then be only 25,000 miles?

The RE have the SAME problem as well:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78333.msg2114379#msg2114379
Linking to a thread where you demonstrate your improper use of math. That will show us.
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: rabinoz on August 24, 2019, 04:03:10 AM
Then the DE model has the same problem as most flat earth models; namely the length of the equator. See, if the distance from the central(North?) pole of a flat earth disk to the Equator is 6200 miles. But a circle with a radius of such a distance should have a circumference of 39,000 miles. How can the Equator then be only 25,000 miles?

The RE have the SAME problem as well:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78333.msg2114379#msg2114379
The Globe has no such problem.
The average radius is 6371 km and 2 × π × 6371 = 40,030 km.
The distance from the equator to the North Pole is 10,002 km (to the nearest kilometre).
The discrepancy between 4 × 10,002 km (Meridional Circumference), 2 × π × 6371 = 40,030 km (from the average radius) and 40,075 km the Equatorial Circumference is simply because the earth is not a perfect sphere.
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: sandokhan on August 24, 2019, 04:36:51 AM
The Globe has no such problem.
The average radius is 6371 km and 2 × π × 6371 = 40,030 km.
The distance from the equator to the North Pole is 10,002 km (to the nearest kilometre).
The discrepancy between 4 × 10,002 km (Meridional Circumference), 2 × π × 6371 = 40,030 km (from the average radius) and 40,075 km the Equatorial Circumference is simply because the earth is not a perfect sphere.

But it does have such problems.

This is the correct FE map (Piri Reis map):

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/7/7b/Sandokhan_map.png/450px-Sandokhan_map.png)

It has a radius of 6363.63 km.

For the RE map, you have to DOUBLE the radius: it now becomes 12727.2727 km.

That is, you take the map, DOUBLE its radius and fill in the remaining space with water.

Your map has the following surface area expressed for a circle: π(2r)2 (=4πr2) (surface area for a sphere: 4πr2 = π(2r)2)

The FE map has this formula: πr2

The RE map has a radius TWICE THE SIZE of the radius of the FE map.

FE radius = 6363.63 km

RE radius = 12727.27 km


(https://previews.123rf.com/images/linaflerova/linaflerova1708/linaflerova170800017/84730320-earth-globe-world-map-set-planet-with-continents-africa-asia-australia-europe-north-america-and-sout.jpg)

Problem #2: how do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere without attractive gravity?

You want to use gravitons?

How do two gravitons attract each other?

Can you explain the attractive mechanism?

Can you explain to your readers how two gravitons attract each other? What is the mechanism of attraction?

You cannot, therefore those trillions of billions of liters of water are glued to an outer surface by pure magic.

Even pure magic cannot explain this horrendous hypothesis.

You claim that terrestrial gravity is attractive, yet you cannot explain the mechanism.

It is even worse than pure magic.

Please explain the physics to your readers.

What you are telling your readers is even worse than Aristotle's Credo Quia Absurdum Est (I believe because it is absurd).

The attractive gravity hypothesis is not even a credible fairy tale, it is even beyond the powers of pure magic to explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

It is though the exemplification of a fanatical and dogmatic agenda which goes even beyond what organized religion has to offer.

Do you want to use gravitons?

So, how do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?

Let us examine the graviton problem. There are only two possible choices: either these gravitons were a one-time emission five billion years ago, or they are being emitted continuously by the iron/nickel core. In both cases the graviton must either consist of two kinds of particles, one which has an emissive vortex, the other one which has a receptive vortex, or a single particle with two ends consisting of an emissive vortex, while the other end has a receptive vortex.

In both cases we are dealing immediately with the defiance of the law of conservation of energy: how in the world can these vortices function after five billion years with no loss of energy?

Moreover, you have another huge problem: each object on the surface of the earth must connect to the gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core through strings of gravitons which fit neatly and totally to each and every graviton released by the object itself. How then can that object move freely on the surface of the sphere? Obviously the strings of gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core are not intelligent enough to know the random direction of movement of the object. Are you telling your readers that the strings of the object can slide freely from a static string of gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core, to another with no loss of energy, not to mention the very mechanism itself?

The gases in the atmosphere do not obey any kind of an attractive law of gravity.

The gravitons cannot be used to explain attractive gravity.

Please explain to your readers how attractive gravitation functions. If you cannot, then what you are telling yourself and to your readers is that gravity on a spherical earth is governed by pure magic.


Problem #3: the position of the centre of gravity varies according to the shape of the object.

And, according to the official theory we do have an applied external force:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/f/3/0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5658c3bfee.png)

You MUST have a symmetrically perfect ellipsoid (or geoid) or there will be a clear and direct DEFIANCE of the law of universal gravitation.

Let us carefully calculate the effect/distribution of mass of the continents with respect to both hemispheres (northern and southern).


"The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one.

The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads - we include here all the mountains/hills.

But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so."


The northern hemisphere has a greater mass than its southern counterpart.

The unequally loaded perfect oblate spheroid (first four layers) DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.

It should rotate with the northern hemisphere facing the sun.

At present, the RE has an unequal distribution of mass: the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere.


For the Pangeea continent the situation is much worse: such a concentration of land mass in just one place would have meant an EVEN GREATER unequal load upon the inner layers of the Earth.


BASIC NEWTONIAN PHYSICS: we have a center of gravity which is located ABOVE THE EQUATOR, given the fact that the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere. Then, the accepted law of universal gravitation tells us that the Earth should revolve facing the Sun with its North Pole.

Now, that is one HUGE problem for your map!

Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: rabinoz on August 24, 2019, 05:32:48 AM
Then the DE model has the same problem as most flat earth models; namely the length of the equator. See, if the distance from the central(North?) pole of a flat earth disk to the Equator is 6200 miles. But a circle with a radius of such a distance should have a circumference of 39,000 miles. How can the Equator then be only 25,000 miles?

The RE have the SAME problem as well:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78333.msg2114379#msg2114379
The Globe has no such problem.
The average radius is 6371 km and 2 × π × 6371 = 40,030 km.
The distance from the equator to the North Pole is 10,002 km (to the nearest kilometre).
The discrepancy between 4 × 10,002 km (Meridional Circumference), 2 × π × 6371 = 40,030 km (from the average radius) and 40,075 km the Equatorial Circumference is simply because the earth is not a perfect sphere.
But it does have such problems.

This is the correct FE map (Piri Reis map):
So if the "Piri Reis map" is the correct FE map, how is it that:
Quote from: sandokhan
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/7/7b/Sandokhan_map.png/450px-Sandokhan_map.png)

It has a radius of 6363.63 km.
Show where that 6363.63 km came from, thank you!

Because that definition of the metre is 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the equator on the meridian that passes through Paris - try to fit THAT onto YOUR map!
Quote
The Standard Meter (http://www.surveyhistory.org/the_standard_meter1.htm)
(Article taken from "Backsights" Magazine published by Surveyors Historical Society)
The French originated the meter in the 1790s as one/ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the north pole along a meridian through Paris.  It is realistically represented by the distance between two marks on an iron bar kept in Paris.  The International Bureau of Weights and Measures, created in 1875, upgraded the bar to one made of 90 percent platinum/10 percent iridium alloy.

Quote from: sandokhan
For the RE map, you have to DOUBLE the radius: it now becomes 12727.2727 km.
No, we do not "have to DOUBLE the radius"! Whyever would you claim that?
 
In any case, why should the dimensions of the Globe be connected with your "Piri Reis map"?

Until I get a reasonable answer for that I'll ignore that rest of your post.

The rest is totally irrelevant to any answer to my post so I'll take the liberty of simply deleting that too.
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: sokarul on August 24, 2019, 05:48:16 AM

For the 100th time, the graviton is string theory, not general relativity.

Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: Bullwinkle on August 24, 2019, 06:05:35 AM
rabinoz, sandokhan's post is way bigger than yours.

Do you need a fluffer?
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: JackBlack on August 24, 2019, 06:08:32 AM
This is the correct FE map (Piri Reis map):
There is no correct FE map.
FEers are yet to produce one that matches reality.
For example, your one has Australia and America far too far apart.

For the RE map, you have to DOUBLE the radius: it now becomes 12727.2727 km.
No we don't. We will take the radius that measurements indicate. The radius of the very real RE has nothing to do with your broken map.

Problem #2: how do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere without attractive gravity?
RE accepts gravity. It has no reason to reject it.

You claim that terrestrial gravity is attractive, yet you cannot explain the mechanism.
The depends on what you mean by "mechanism."
It is explained through the curvature of space time.
It is just as well explained as any other fundamental force.
Meanwhile FE has no explanation for why things fall.

You MUST have a symmetrically perfect ellipsoid (or geoid) or there will be a clear and direct DEFIANCE of the law of universal gravitation.
Pure nonsense.
You do not need a perfect ellipsoid. If you wish to assert such garbage you will need to provide more than your baseless assertions.

It should rotate with the northern hemisphere facing the sun.
And another baseless assertion.

So no problem with the map at all, or RE at all.
Just your baseless assertions.
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: sokarul on August 24, 2019, 06:09:10 AM
rabinoz, sandokhan's post is way bigger than yours.

Do you need a fluffer?

A fluffer sucks of camera men who film porn. What does that have to do with this thread?
Title: Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
Post by: rabinoz on August 24, 2019, 06:58:07 AM
rabinoz, sandokhan's post is way bigger than yours.

Do you need a fluffer?
I could pad it out with lots of copy-n-paste ;). Would that help ????