« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8   Go Down

Why no round Earth?

  • 231 Replies
  • 53952 Views
?

Steph

  • 17
  • +0/-0
Why no round Earth?
« on: March 22, 2007, 05:22:10 AM »
I've seen here a lot of posts for Round Earthers, trying to find problems with FE, and asking Flat Earthers to explain that. So we have FE giving parts of their theory, and RE trying to disprove it.
Then the FE try to debuke the debuking, usually using things like "your evidence has been falsified, etc".

I wonder the opposite. Why do flat earther consider the RE as invalid? Just imagine that the REer here are honnest and not part of the conspiracy.

The geuinly believe the earth is round, and the argument they presents are not purposedly falsified.
What flaws can the FEer find in it, to reject RE?

Logged
?

physics_guy

  • 62
  • +0/-0
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2007, 06:03:53 AM »
Most of their arguements can actually be proven wrong. REers just wouldn't understand why...

REers believe what they "know", like gravitation or plane flights or curve on the horizon, is completely right.

If they someday come to believe the facts like the great ice wall, the earth pockets, the giant mountains, space mirrors etc. the truth would be a lot more obvious to them.
Logged
*

Mr. Ireland

  • 14986
  • +0/-0
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2007, 06:18:19 AM »
Quote from: physics_guy on March 22, 2007, 06:03:53 AM
Most of their arguements can actually be proven wrong. REers just wouldn't understand why...

REers believe what they "know", like gravitation or plane flights or curve on the horizon, is completely right.

If they someday come to believe the facts like the great ice wall, the earth pockets, the giant mountains, space mirrors etc. the truth would be a lot more obvious to them.

Because we all know how believable space mirrors and earth pockets are.   ::)
Logged
?

Steph

  • 17
  • +0/-0
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2007, 06:24:25 AM »
Quote from: physics_guy on March 22, 2007, 06:03:53 AM
Most of their arguements can actually be proven wrong. REers just wouldn't understand why...
If you have a good proof something is wrong it should be easy to understand? If people don't understand the evidence, then it may also be because it's not a good evidence, or it's not explain in an efficient way.

Quote from: physics_guy on March 22, 2007, 06:03:53 AM
If they someday come to believe the facts like the great ice wall, the earth pockets, the giant mountains, space mirrors etc. the truth would be a lot more obvious to them.
First, if they are to be considered as facts, and not some beliefs, they have to be back with some evidence.
Second, that's irrelevent to the question I ask. What in a model of a Round Earth is considered as inconsistent by FEers, and make them dismiss RE?

I'm not asking how you believe a FE is, but what makes you think RE is false? Beside the simple fact you believe FE is true?

For instance, RE could say "I don't believe in a FE, because it doesn't match long range plane flights"

What do FEers have to say to dimiss RE?

I'm trying to place the debate on the level of two theoretical models.

Suppose we don't know, or don't believe, that the Earth is flat or round.

We have two possible models: Flat Earth, Round Earth.

We decide to use a scientific approach to find what is the correct models.

To achieve this goal, we can bring evidences that a model is correct, and evidences that the other is not correct.

I have brought one that the Flat Earth is false and Round Earth is true, we are discussing it in the other thread.

So now, what would FEer use as edivence that the Earth is not round?

« Last Edit: March 22, 2007, 06:26:03 AM by Steph »
Logged
*

Mr. Ireland

  • 14986
  • +0/-0
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2007, 06:28:32 AM »
Steph, when it comes to dissproving RE, the FE'ers just say, "PROVE GRAVITY!!11!!".    Even though it's used in their model also.
Logged
?

icthyosis

  • 87
  • +0/-0
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #5 on: March 22, 2007, 06:30:15 AM »
jesus chritgod is savior and unfortold lord christ hay guys.
Logged
[size=24]TIME IS CUBIC[/size]
*

Mr. Ireland

  • 14986
  • +0/-0
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2007, 06:31:40 AM »
Cows eat hay.
Logged
?

Steph

  • 17
  • +0/-0
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #7 on: March 22, 2007, 07:12:44 AM »
Quote from: EIRD on March 22, 2007, 06:28:32 AM
Steph, when it comes to dissproving RE, the FE'ers just say, "PROVE GRAVITY!!11!!".    Even though it's used in their model also.
Well, here is an opportunity for them to say something else
Logged
?

Tobias

  • 59
  • +0/-0
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #8 on: March 22, 2007, 07:33:29 AM »
Quote from: EIRD on March 22, 2007, 06:28:32 AM
Steph, when it comes to dissproving RE, the FE'ers just say, "PROVE GRAVITY!!11!!".    Even though it's used in their model also.

To all fe'ers who use this argument. scientific experiments have been carried out in imperial college london which have shown 2 neutral non-magnetic objects will attract each other!  the bigger the objects get the more attraction..this provides a very strong case for gravity
Logged
?

physics_guy

  • 62
  • +0/-0
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #9 on: March 22, 2007, 01:04:01 PM »
First of all, RE doesn't hold with the pizza dough theory.
To make the pizza dough flat, pizza makers spin it. I'm sure you've all seen something like that before. They throw the dough in the air, spin it, and it becomes as flat as the FE. As we all know earth is spinning, earth must get flat in time, like the pizza, and millions of years should be enough time for that...

Secondly, RE doesn't explain why the effects of angular acceleration around the sun can't be detected on earth. Therefore, earth pockets theory is more consistent in terms of measurable forces on earth.

And last but not least, RE is inconsistent with the atmosphere distribution. If RE was right, due to the motion of the earth, atmosphere thickness would have varied between day and night sides of the earth. Not to mention that atmosphere would've expanded and eventually disappeared...
Logged
?

GroundControl

  • 22
  • +0/-0
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #10 on: March 22, 2007, 01:35:41 PM »
Quote from: physics_guy on March 22, 2007, 01:04:01 PM
First of all, RE doesn't hold with the pizza dough theory.
To make the pizza dough flat, pizza makers spin it. I'm sure you've all seen something like that before. They throw the dough in the air, spin it, and it becomes as flat as the FE. As we all know earth is spinning, earth must get flat in time, like the pizza, and millions of years should be enough time for that...
Because the Earth is made of Pizza Dough and spins at several revolutions per minute, with nothing to balance the centripital force...

(Rather than, say, a mass of mostly Iron and Nickel, spinning at 1 revolution per ~24 hours, and held togeather by the force of gravity - As it is in RE)

Quote
Secondly, RE doesn't explain why the effects of angular acceleration around the sun can't be detected on earth. Therefore, earth pockets theory is more consistent in terms of measurable forces on earth.
Perhaps because it's effects are minute compared to the more immediate influence of Earth itself?

Quote
And last but not least, RE is inconsistent with the atmosphere distribution. If RE was right, due to the motion of the earth, atmosphere thickness would have varied between day and night sides of the earth. Not to mention that atmosphere would've expanded and eventually disappeared...
You'll have to elaborate on this, as I'm just not seeing how any of that follows from a Round Earth.
Logged
*

Franc T., Planar

  • 1051
  • +0/-0
  • Leader of the Planar Army, Republic of Canada
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #11 on: March 22, 2007, 01:56:09 PM »
Quote from: Steph on March 22, 2007, 05:22:10 AM
I wonder the opposite. Why do flat earther consider the RE as invalid? Just imagine that the REer here are honnest and not part of the conspiracy.

I have yet to see ANY REer who is honest. All REers do on this board is attack, insult, make death threats, and mock. They have no theories or ideas. How does one refute what does not exist?
Logged
Broadcasting live from the Republic of Canada!
 
They say death and taxes are the only two absolutes. Actually, they're only half right.

?

Miss M.

  • 1854
  • +0/-0
  • Screw you.
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #12 on: March 22, 2007, 02:02:22 PM »
one could easily say that about 'Pureland'.
Logged
Quote from: TheEngineer
I happen to like GG.
Quote from: Z, the Enlightened.
I never thought in my life I'd write the sentence "I thought they were caught in a bipolar geodesic?"
*

Franc T., Planar

  • 1051
  • +0/-0
  • Leader of the Planar Army, Republic of Canada
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #13 on: March 22, 2007, 03:26:09 PM »
Yea right. I'm sure the 3 billion people who live there will be very surprised to learn they don't exist.
Logged
Broadcasting live from the Republic of Canada!
 
They say death and taxes are the only two absolutes. Actually, they're only half right.

?

Miss M.

  • 1854
  • +0/-0
  • Screw you.
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #14 on: March 22, 2007, 03:52:58 PM »
do you know how much we missed you're brief stint away from the forums? Really. We did.
Logged
Quote from: TheEngineer
I happen to like GG.
Quote from: Z, the Enlightened.
I never thought in my life I'd write the sentence "I thought they were caught in a bipolar geodesic?"
*

Franc T., Planar

  • 1051
  • +0/-0
  • Leader of the Planar Army, Republic of Canada
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #15 on: March 22, 2007, 03:53:53 PM »
Go fuck yourself.
Logged
Broadcasting live from the Republic of Canada!
 
They say death and taxes are the only two absolutes. Actually, they're only half right.

*

unclegravy

  • 957
  • +0/-0
  • I feel so fucking high!!!!!!
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #16 on: March 22, 2007, 04:09:13 PM »
Quote from: physics_guy on March 22, 2007, 06:03:53 AM
Most of their arguements can actually be proven wrong. REers just wouldn't understand why...

REers believe what they "know", like gravitation or plane flights or curve on the horizon, is completely right.
Even FE'ers agree that gravitation exists; there just is no denying it. What they say doesn't exist (on the earth anyway) is gravity.
Logged
Quote
The people who feast on exclamation marks will never go hungry agaaaain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
?

Miss M.

  • 1854
  • +0/-0
  • Screw you.
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #17 on: March 22, 2007, 04:12:32 PM »
they are easily confused - I thought they meant the same thing till I looked gravitation up...
Logged
Quote from: TheEngineer
I happen to like GG.
Quote from: Z, the Enlightened.
I never thought in my life I'd write the sentence "I thought they were caught in a bipolar geodesic?"
*

unclegravy

  • 957
  • +0/-0
  • I feel so fucking high!!!!!!
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #18 on: March 22, 2007, 04:15:29 PM »
Quote from: physics_guy on March 22, 2007, 01:04:01 PM
First of all, RE doesn't hold with the pizza dough theory.
To make the pizza dough flat, pizza makers spin it. I'm sure you've all seen something like that before. They throw the dough in the air, spin it, and it becomes as flat as the FE. As we all know earth is spinning, earth must get flat in time, like the pizza, and millions of years should be enough time for that...
Have you heard about the theory that the Earth is an oblate spheroid? Read on that.

Secondly, RE doesn't explain why the effects of angular acceleration around the sun can't be detected on earth. Therefore, earth pockets theory is more consistent in terms of measurable forces on earth.
I haven't heard this approach yet. Enlighten me.

And last but not least, RE is inconsistent with the atmosphere distribution. If RE was right, due to the motion of the earth, atmosphere thickness would have varied between day and night sides of the earth. Not to mention that atmosphere would've expanded and eventually disappeared...
Gravity explains that too, and gravity exists in the round earth model, last time I checked
Logged
Quote
The people who feast on exclamation marks will never go hungry agaaaain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
?

Miss M.

  • 1854
  • +0/-0
  • Screw you.
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #19 on: March 22, 2007, 04:18:24 PM »
I wasn't saying you were wrong, just that they are easily confused - accounting for physics guy's use of the word 'graviation' when he meant gravity.



edit: ah I'm confused now reading back...
« Last Edit: March 22, 2007, 04:20:12 PM by Maus »
Logged
Quote from: TheEngineer
I happen to like GG.
Quote from: Z, the Enlightened.
I never thought in my life I'd write the sentence "I thought they were caught in a bipolar geodesic?"
*

unclegravy

  • 957
  • +0/-0
  • I feel so fucking high!!!!!!
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #20 on: March 22, 2007, 04:19:48 PM »
Eh, no, I wasn't replying to your post.
You posted while I was typing.
Logged
Quote
The people who feast on exclamation marks will never go hungry agaaaain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
?

Skyburn

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #21 on: March 22, 2007, 07:44:50 PM »
Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 22, 2007, 01:56:09 PM
Quote from: Steph on March 22, 2007, 05:22:10 AM
I wonder the opposite. Why do flat earther consider the RE as invalid? Just imagine that the REer here are honnest and not part of the conspiracy.

I have yet to see ANY REer who is honest. All REers do on this board is attack, insult, make death threats, and mock. They have no theories or ideas. How does one refute what does not exist?
How is one so hypocritical?
You blindly follow what does not exist. You present no actual facts, just make up things as you go to fit what you want. You have no room to speak, Franc.

Explanation of Atomosphereic density, by RE:
1) Near-constant velocity
2) Gravity
3) Archimedes' Principle
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #22 on: March 22, 2007, 07:45:48 PM »
The velocity of the RE is constantly changing.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
*

Franc T., Planar

  • 1051
  • +0/-0
  • Leader of the Planar Army, Republic of Canada
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #23 on: March 22, 2007, 07:53:14 PM »
Quote from: Skyburn on March 22, 2007, 07:44:50 PM
Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 22, 2007, 01:56:09 PM
Quote from: Steph on March 22, 2007, 05:22:10 AM
I wonder the opposite. Why do flat earther consider the RE as invalid? Just imagine that the REer here are honnest and not part of the conspiracy.

I have yet to see ANY REer who is honest. All REers do on this board is attack, insult, make death threats, and mock. They have no theories or ideas. How does one refute what does not exist?
How is one so hypocritical?
You blindly follow what does not exist. You present no actual facts, just make up things as you go to fit what you want. You have no room to speak, Franc.

Explanation of Atomosphereic density, by RE:
1) Near-constant velocity
2) Gravity
3) Archimedes' Principle

Since I agree with varying atmospheric density and gravity, what is your fucking point, troll?
Logged
Broadcasting live from the Republic of Canada!
 
They say death and taxes are the only two absolutes. Actually, they're only half right.

?

Steph

  • 17
  • +0/-0
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #24 on: March 23, 2007, 12:25:38 AM »
Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 22, 2007, 01:56:09 PM
Quote from: Steph on March 22, 2007, 05:22:10 AM
I wonder the opposite. Why do flat earther consider the RE as invalid? Just imagine that the REer here are honnest and not part of the conspiracy.
I have yet to see ANY REer who is honest. All REers do on this board is attack, insult, make death threats, and mock. They have no theories or ideas. How does one refute what does not exist?
Could you point to somewhere in my threads where I've been insulting, made death threats or mocked? So far, I'm asking some answers to question, but I didn't received much.

Beside, you claim we only insult... But

"what is your fucking point" Franck T. Plannar

"Go fuck yourself."Franck T. Plannar

It seems to me you are the only one to use insult in this thread so far.

« Last Edit: March 23, 2007, 12:42:49 AM by Steph »
Logged
?

Steph

  • 17
  • +0/-0
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #25 on: March 23, 2007, 12:38:17 AM »
First, thanks to answer my question

Quote from: physics_guy on March 22, 2007, 01:04:01 PM
First of all, RE doesn't hold with the pizza dough theory.
To make the pizza dough flat, pizza makers spin it. I'm sure you've all seen something like that before. They throw the dough in the air, spin it, and it becomes as flat as the FE. As we all know earth is spinning, earth must get flat in time, like the pizza, and millions of years should be enough time for that...
Well, actually Earth is not a perfect sphere, but an ellispoid. The Earth is not the result of the revolution of a circle around tha polar axis, but the result of the revolution of an ellipse, with the length of the two semi axis being 6,378,137.0 m and 6,356,752.314 245 m.
So the Earth is getting flat in time. However, the gravity force compared to the centrifuge force created by the spinning is muich greater. So the Earth is getting flat very slowly.

Quote from: physics_guy on March 22, 2007, 01:04:01 PM
Secondly, RE doesn't explain why the effects of angular acceleration around the sun can't be detected on earth. Therefore, earth pockets theory is more consistent in terms of measurable forces on earth.
I cannot comment on that, as I don't know what is Earth Pockets theory. Can you explain it please?

Quote from: physics_guy on March 22, 2007, 01:04:01 PM
And last but not least, RE is inconsistent with the atmosphere distribution. If RE was right, due to the motion of the earth, atmosphere thickness would have varied between day and night sides of the earth. Not to mention that atmosphere would've expanded and eventually disappeared...
I don't understand what you mean about atmosphere thickness varying between day and night.
About the expansion of the atmosphre, it did not disappear due to gravity. However, depending on the gravity force and the atmosphere density, some planets in the solar system have no atmosphere (ex: moon), some others have atmosphere, like Earth.




Logged
?

Miss M.

  • 1854
  • +0/-0
  • Screw you.
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #26 on: March 23, 2007, 02:54:29 AM »
Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 22, 2007, 07:53:14 PM
Quote from: Skyburn on March 22, 2007, 07:44:50 PM
Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 22, 2007, 01:56:09 PM
Quote from: Steph on March 22, 2007, 05:22:10 AM
I wonder the opposite. Why do flat earther consider the RE as invalid? Just imagine that the REer here are honnest and not part of the conspiracy.

I have yet to see ANY REer who is honest. All REers do on this board is attack, insult, make death threats, and mock. They have no theories or ideas. How does one refute what does not exist?
How is one so hypocritical?
You blindly follow what does not exist. You present no actual facts, just make up things as you go to fit what you want. You have no room to speak, Franc.

Explanation of Atomosphereic density, by RE:
1) Near-constant velocity
2) Gravity
3) Archimedes' Principle

Since I agree with varying atmospheric density and gravity, what is your fucking point, troll?
he was being very reasonable, polite etc, and you are just plain rude. You're the troll frankly.
Logged
Quote from: TheEngineer
I happen to like GG.
Quote from: Z, the Enlightened.
I never thought in my life I'd write the sentence "I thought they were caught in a bipolar geodesic?"
*

Franc T., Planar

  • 1051
  • +0/-0
  • Leader of the Planar Army, Republic of Canada
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #27 on: March 23, 2007, 01:47:01 PM »
I am not a troll. I am here to debate the Flat Earth, not ignorant Round Earth bullshit.
Logged
Broadcasting live from the Republic of Canada!
 
They say death and taxes are the only two absolutes. Actually, they're only half right.

?

Game_Guru777

  • 108
  • +0/-0
  • Truth knows no bounds...
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #28 on: March 23, 2007, 07:35:52 PM »
Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 23, 2007, 01:47:01 PM
I am not a troll. I am here to debate the Flat Earth, not ignorant Round Earth bullshit.

And you say that RE'ers attack FE'ers, try to be civil and actually see the logic in what others say. Maybe they are not right in your eyes, but everyone has a chance to give an opinion, correct? While it is clear to see where you stand on the topic, why do you exactly support it? There must be a reason that you believe the Earth is flat, not round. Try supporting what you say and maybe people will see what you are talking about.

So instead of attacking, insulting, making threats, and mocking try to see the what they are getting at and debunk it with a fact. I believe that is what the board was created for in the first place. And if you do not, I think we will see who is truly ignorant...

((I am sure you are aware that this is my first post and I would like to say hello to everyone here. I am just here to see the opinions of others and give my own views on the Earth and its shape.))
Logged
Hold it!!! Your statement directly contradicts the evidence.

Objection!!! Your claims make no sense! Think about what you are going to say before you say it!

Evidence is everything...
*

Franc T., Planar

  • 1051
  • +0/-0
  • Leader of the Planar Army, Republic of Canada
Re: Why no round Earth?
« Reply #29 on: March 23, 2007, 07:53:45 PM »
Just because I call bullshit bullshit, does not mean I am insulting people. It's just truthsaying.
Logged
Broadcasting live from the Republic of Canada!
 
They say death and taxes are the only two absolutes. Actually, they're only half right.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8   Go Up
« previous next »