Ok, let's have a serious debate

I'm new here, and I haven't had the time to read everything, so I ask you to excuse me in advance if I asks things already debated before.

I'm a Round Earther, and I'm very curious to know what are the arguments of the Flat Earther. I'd like to debate seriously about it to try to understand their arguments.

So, first, I travel a lot for my job, which involves computing trajectories for aircrafts, based on a Round Earth model.
When a plane travels, it follows the shortest path between two points, and it does so following orthodromies: "piece of Great "Circle" " on the Earth ellipsoide.

Here are some computed trajectories starting from France using this model.



We can clearly see that some routes, like from Japan to Ceylan, are not lines, but curve. We can find some of these above land only (no ocean or sea).

Now, if we take a plane, and follow these trajectories, we could take pictures of the land just below the plane, to check what areas we are flying over. To be sure we follow these curved trajectories.

Then, we could do the same flying on a straight line between these two points.

Having the plane keep a constant speed, the time needed to fly both routes will correspond to a distance.

Well.... The plane takes less time to fly the curved line between Ceylan and Japan that it would flying the straight line.

This is not consistant with a flat earth centered on the North Pole.

How the Flat Earth proponents can explain that?

This point is just to start the debate, feel free to answer with other arguments for or against flat earth, but please, start by answering this point.

I too am a round earther. However, a smart flat earther would say that time is distorted (for some mysterious reason) the further south you go, distorting your concept of velocity and making you think you are covering less distance than you actually are.

It must have been a fish eye lens.  Case closed

It must have been a fish eye lens.  Case closed

Wrong.

what kind of a map is that? its like you took the flat earth, projected it on a sphere, and drew it all over again!!
Please use proper maps.. For example i could have come up with a map like this and stated that US is next to africa:



but i didn't... You know why? because I'm an honest person.
I dont do fake maps... Thats just the way I am...
Shame on you! Shame on you!

BTW that map clearly shows the position of a possible future ice-wall formation on Pacific ocean. Can our brain-guys see through this please? Maybe it'll lead to something?

It must have been a fish eye lens.  Case closed

How easy... I thought you wanted a serious debate?
Perhaps you did not read what I wrote very carefuly.
I'm saying that if you follow the curved track, as in my picture, from Ceylan to Japan, you'll take less time than if following a straight line (with the same speed).
It shouldn't be with the flat earth.

The picture example was just a way to check the plane is actually following the straight line or the curved line. The fish eye lens is completly irrelevent. You can use any other method you want to be sure the plane is actually flying over the land it should fly over.

Case reopened?

what kind of a map is that? its like you took the flat earth, projected it on a sphere, and drew it all over again!!
Please use proper maps..

If you are interested it is a map of a round earth using a stereographic polar projection. It thought it should match why I read about your view of a flat map centered on the North Pole.
If you have a better map to use as a reference, please provide it and we'll discuss from it.

but i didn't... You know why? because I'm an honest person.
I dont do fake maps... Thats just the way I am...

Is it how you welcome someone who just arrives and try to have a debate with you? Implying you are the only honest, while he uses fake maps, when you don't even try to know what is it? I wonder who is the one who is intellectually honnest, and who should be ashamed.

BTW that map clearly shows the position of a possible future ice-wall formation on Pacific ocean. Can our brain-guys see through this please? Maybe it'll lead to something?

You sir, have a gaping void in your life that amuses me in the same way a car crash would.

Or, to paraphrase, you are a one gigantic twat.

It must have been a fish eye lens.  Case closed

More like eyes closed.

Implying you are the only honest, while he uses fake maps,...

I always though you were a she... sorry about that..I dont know why I confessed how I thought you were a she, but i felt like you have the right to know...

I have a friend named "Stephanie" and we call her steph. Thats probably why... And on the other hand, I have a friend named Stephan (pronounced stephhaaan with a's as in "aye") whom we never called steph.

Whatever, what was i saying... your map is curved, but earth isnt. That's where all the confusion is coming from...

You sir, have a gaping void in your life that amuses me in the same way a car crash would.
Or, to paraphrase, you are a one gigantic twat.

Thanks man! Appreciated

Stephane is a common French first name for male, and often shorten to Steph. Stephanie is shortened the same way.

Can you explain what you mean by "my map is curved"? As I can see it on my screen, which is flat, it means the map is flat. It's a "flatten representation of a Round Earth" if you will.

So now, can you please provide a "proper map" of a Flat Earth, showing Earth countries, so we can work from there, if my map doesn't suit you?

Here is my point: Earth is round, I provide a flat representation of it through a stereographical polar projection, centered on the North Pole, so we can discuss with a map.

Your point is : Earth is flat, so my map is not correct. I'm ready to grant you my map is not correct, and I'm ready to continue the debate with your map. See, I'm making some steps.

Your turn to do so.

Interestingly when you go read ENaG online, it points out the problems with the Zetetic map that accompanies the book.
"The Zetetic map has a severly squashed South America and Africa, and Australia and New Zealand in the middle of the Pacific. I think that by the 19th century people would have noticed if Australia and Africa were thousands of miles further apart than expected, let alone if Africa was wider than it was long!"

I am new to this forum today. I am a "round earther", and I would like to see a concise, respectful debate, as Steph has started. I'm not here to attack or make fun of anyone, I want to discuss why I believe that we live on a round earth. I try to approach all things with an open mind so, while I definitively disagree with the flat earth theories, I do not look down on those that subscribe to them. If you can respectfully and reasonably support a flat earth theory, I would like to hear your case. The reason I feel many on this board may lack some credibility is the incredibly juvenile responses on both sides I have seen after scrolling through the board.

Granted, I will admit this topic is not very high on my priority list (I believe the evidence of a round earth vs. a flat earth is simply staggering), I am interested in objectively looking at the issue for my own satisfaction. I have a few key questions for flat earth supporters off the top of my head...

What objective evidence can be found for flat earth theory? (E.g. looking at collective experience of people around the world, what compels one to believe the earth is flat as opposed to being round. What evidence to supporters of flat earth theory provide to contradict the attraction of a massive (e.g. has any mass at all) particle to another in an apparently uniform manner? Let me clarify. Heavy particles of matter are attracted by the force of gravity (proportionate to its mass) in all directions, and when concentrations of mass are high enough the particles "stick" together, forming everyday matter.

Logically, therefore, rotating mass should coalesce into a rough spheroid (not perfect because of centripetal force--which!--is proven by the equatorial bulge of the earth and all large planets), not a disc. What force exists that would cause the planet to retain a disc shape?

According to Einstein's general relativity theory, time is relative to objects because even the fundamental forces have a speed limiter, 186,000 mile/sec or the speed of light. Experiments with atomic clocks (which are incredibly accurate: they only lose a fraction of a second over vast periods of time, hundreds of years) have shown that airplanes and spacecraft flying over large distances above the earth show very slight discrepancy in their readouts. The effect, therefore, is that astronauts (who orbit at roughly 16,000 mph) and even everyday airline travelers are tiny fractions of a second slower in time than one at sea level.

This only works because the earth rotates at just over 1,000 mph. How does flat earth theory accommodate relativistic time? If one maintains that relativity is not true, what other experimentally verifiable theory exists to counter it?

Finally, on a more philosophical level, how could so many well-studied people who study and experimentally verify a round earth still be so absurdly incorrect about the very nature of our home in space? I have read that some flat earth theorists maintain that there is a vast conspiracy to cover up the truth of a flat earth, but I must ask why? Even if some grand cabal did exist, how could the benefit of keeping such an integral truth hidden outweigh the falsity? People always end up discovering the truth in time, no matter what the will of the powers-at-be. Therefore my question is also: If round earth fact is taken to be false, who does this benefit? What implications does it have for humanity as a whole?

The only answer I can surmise logically is that those who subscribe to flat earth theory seem to espouse the theory based on a personal agenda or political/religious zeal alone. I have not read a single flat earth supporter who has come to that conclusion based--NOT on any dogmatic teaching (TO INCLUDE BOTH scientific and religious teachings)-- but on their own vigorous research and analysis of scientific evidence.

PLEASE, if you support flat earth theory I would like to debate it, not argue like teenagers. I am looking for adult, respectful, and logical discourse. If you are an intelligent intellectual person who can hold a civilized conversation, I am interested in this debate. If you are going to respond childishly with nonsensical attacks then there is no point to having a debate section.

Cheers,
D

So, can a FEer provide us with a "proper map of Earh" compliant to the FE theory, so we can work on it?
See, I'm ready to debate on your ground.

Most pointless thread ever.

Very informative answer, with lot of explanation of why you say so.

C: "So you don't believe in God?"
A: "No, I don't. I think the idea goes against empiricism and the nature of the universe itself."
C: "Okay then, if you're so sure God doesn't exist, please provide me with a full explanation of the changes in the nature of each particle in the universe from time T=0 until now."
A: "But... I don't have the tools to do so. I mean, we have a general idea of how it works, but I can't show you the changes in every particle and how..."
C: "AHA! You admit it! YOUR THEORY IS INCOMPLETE! Until you explain EVERYTHING to me, I remain right and you remain wrong!"
A: "Isn't that an Argument from Ignorance? Because I can't prove something 100%, it must be false?"
C: "... shut up!"

What is they link between requesting to see a proper map of a FE and your point about God?

Urgh. Metaphors are wasted on you retards.

Urgh. Metaphors are wasted on you retards.

Racist.

wEIRD

I am not racist- I hate all REers regardless of race.

I'm sensing frustration

C: "So you don't believe in God?"
A: "No, I don't. I think the idea goes against empiricism and the nature of the universe itself."
C: "Okay then, if you're so sure God doesn't exist, please provide me with a full explanation of the changes in the nature of each particle in the universe from time T=0 until now."
A: "But... I don't have the tools to do so. I mean, we have a general idea of how it works, but I can't show you the changes in every particle and how..."
C: "AHA! You admit it! YOUR THEORY IS INCOMPLETE! Until you explain EVERYTHING to me, I remain right and you remain wrong!"
A: "Isn't that an Argument from Ignorance? Because I can't prove something 100%, it must be false?"
C: "... shut up!"

You cannot explain the changes of each particle due to the Heisenberg Uncrertainty Principle.  However, the Heisenberg Prinicple would not limit you from developing a decent represenntation of FE.

Urgh. Metaphors are wasted on you retards.

If you are not going to debate and resort to baseless insults I suggest you leave this thread, troll!

LEAVE THIS BOARD SOCIOPATH.

Is anyone going to respond coherently to the questions I or Steph posted here?

Is anyone going to respond coherently to the questions I or Steph posted here?

We like relativity just fine, thanks.

I guess a FEer could say that the pilots actually are NOT going the fastest way, and that the fastest way would be a straight line - or that they are actually travelling in a straight line and the distorted map makes it look round (is that possible? Not sure)

They don't have an answer because there isn't one. As soon as they respond, you can nail them and end this so they just avoid the questions. I also notice that the further one carries a logical debate to disprove this speculation, the more attempts are made to discredit science and logic or make irrelevant comparisons. Reducing their theories gets you ignored or discredited.

If any of you have gone to Antarctica, they you must be lying.