Wikipedia is awesome!

Ah yes. Well, I wouldn't mind a little Oxy here myself at times.. lol

You're right in one respect: believing you have cookies in your oven is not a religion. This is because you have logical evidence to support it such as you put them there (so i presume), you saw them, and no known physics would make them randomly disappear. Otherwise it would be in a sense religious or in faith.

Actually, I don't have logical evidence that they're in there, but I just believe it because I want them to be there. Does that mean that it's a religion? It's morning for me here and I haven't even gone upstairs to look at my oven let alone to see any cookies in there, but what if I were to believe that they were there. Is that a religion? Maybe I should start a church.

Notice I said "RE is almost completely compatible with known physics". Even so, gravity is an continuing field of study that looks more than plausible when expanding upon string theory. I knew ahead of time this topic would be used as I cannot think of another contradiction.

The String Theory does basically nothing to prove gravity. Plus, it's basically a helluva lot of speculation and "What Ifs," except with complicated mathematic schemes in between in order to make people think that it's important.

FE laws of physics have no plausible basis whatsoever. A force powerful enough to accelerate the whole planet and everything on it for all of history would seem to do so. Conservation of energy is just the tip of the iceberg. FE theory also claims that a giant spotlight is really the sun. The laws of physics wouldn't apply to the creation of a giant light bulb, unless people built it. To bad that's impossible...

FE laws of physics are exactly the same as the RE model's laws of physics. While we may not know what the force of the Universal Accelerator, I still see no problem with it. And the sun is not a spotlight. It BEHAVES like a spotlight in that it only sheds light on a small area of land because it is small and lower to the ground.

"As far as the conspiracy goes, it's simply a logical conclusion of the flat Earth."
What?! With no evidence of a conspiracy, how can you conclude that the Earth is in fact flat? In this respect, if you are saying that the "facts" of a fictitious conspiracy fitting together with that of us not knowing about the fictitious Flat Earth is too much of a coincidence, it's not worth responding to.

A knows B.
A says C.
A is lying.

To answer your question, I have not been in space. However, I have personally observed:

Solar flares, the curvature of the sun's path at different latitudes, studied weather patterns, seen the curvature of the Earth at the horizon (both from side to side and back and forth), studies the effects of magnets and their strengths, calculated the trajectory of satellites based on radio feeds with the angles of dishes, witnessed Foucault pendulums at multiple latitudes, seen other planets through my telescope at multiple stages in rotation, studied the possibility of stellar fusion in a flat sun, and found an approximation of radiation needed to emanate from this spotlight.

Anything else? 

I'm not going to personally go through and tell you what's wrong with each of these because they have all been discussed extensively in other threads and--contrary to popular belief--I do have something which somewhat resembles a life.

~D-Draw

Actually, I don't have logical evidence that they're in there, but I just believe it because I want them to be there. Does that mean that it's a religion? It's morning for me here and I haven't even gone upstairs to look at my oven let alone to see any cookies in there, but what if I were to believe that they were there. Is that a religion? Maybe I should start a church.

I misunderstood that you simply wanted cookies to exist. In any case, it's irrelevant. Actually believing that they do may not directly fit into the definition of religion but it is just as foolish.

The String Theory does basically nothing to prove gravity. Plus, it's basically a helluva lot of speculation and "What Ifs," except with complicated mathematic schemes in between in order to make people think that it's important.

Oh? And you know this how? String theory causes problems for this speculation of FE so it is instantly discredited. lol. Making up stuff doesn't mean others will fall for it. Besides, it does a lot for gravity. It creates potential solutions for the Grand Unified Theory. Having the laws of physics 'agree' with each other on a micro and macro perspective does a whole hell of a lot for the RE case.

FE laws of physics are exactly the same as the RE model's laws of physics. While we may not know what the force of the Universal Accelerator, I still see no problem with it.

umm... Conservation of energy? A power source such that it never runs out, and yet undetectable  by technology by any means. lololol.

And the sun is not a spotlight. It BEHAVES like a spotlight in that it only sheds light on a small area of land because it is small and lower to the ground.

Thanks for clearing that up! Now it disobeys the laws of physics in another way. Shedding light only directly down. Heck, otherwise people far away from it would see it from an angle making it look elliptical.

Quote

"As far as the conspiracy goes, it's simply a logical conclusion of the flat Earth."
What?! With no evidence of a conspiracy, how can you conclude that the Earth is in fact flat? In this respect, if you are saying that the "facts" of a fictitious conspiracy fitting together with that of us not knowing about the fictitious Flat Earth is too much of a coincidence, it's not worth responding to.

A knows B.
A says C.
A is lying.

Um... yes. That is the definition of a lie so to speak. That isn't a valid response though. Lying and us not knowing it doesn't lead to a logical conclusion. Saying that the "facts" of a fictitious conspiracy fitting together with the "fact" that the public is ignorant about the fictitious Flat Earth is too much of a coincidence is ridiculous.

Santa is lying about eating our milk and cookies and he actually shoves them up Rudolf's nostrils. Two elements of fiction. But now that they reinforce each other... ooooh. It must be true! 

Quote

To answer your question, I have not been in space. However, I have personally observed:

Solar flares, the curvature of the sun's path at different latitudes, studied weather patterns, seen the curvature of the Earth at the horizon (both from side to side and back and forth), studies the effects of magnets and their strengths, calculated the trajectory of satellites based on radio feeds with the angles of dishes, witnessed Foucault pendulums at multiple latitudes, seen other planets through my telescope at multiple stages in rotation, studied the possibility of stellar fusion in a flat sun, and found an approximation of radiation needed to emanate from this spotlight.

Anything else? 

I'm not going to personally go through and tell you what's wrong with each of these because they have all been discussed extensively in other threads and--contrary to popular belief--I do have something which somewhat resembles a life.

~D-Draw

That was in response to my personal experiences after I asked yours. Crappy attempts to disprove, discredit, or alter to support FE also doesn't change the fact that they explain a RE perfectly. The point is I have personal experiences to provide such support as Flat Earthers had none. That is why it can safely be called speculation. I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that contradicts a Round Earth. 

I misunderstood that you simply wanted cookies to exist. In any case, it's irrelevant. Actually believing that they do may not directly fit into the definition of religion but it is just as foolish.

Right. It's not a religion. A religion is not JUST a premise of beliefs.

Oh? And you know this how? String theory causes problems for this speculation of FE so it is instantly discredited. lol. Making up stuff doesn't mean others will fall for it. Besides, it does a lot for gravity. It creates potential solutions for the Grand Unified Theory. Having the laws of physics 'agree' with each other on a micro and macro perspective does a whole hell of a lot for the RE case.

I know because the String Theory is basically just a shitload of speculation on HOW things COULD happen IF they did happen certain ways. To the Round Earth theory, sure, it works--albeit lacks any evidence--but if it DIDN'T work out that way, then absolutely nothing would be out of place. If you can prove to me otherwise, I'll concede to the point.

umm... Conservation of energy? A power source such that it never runs out, and yet undetectable  by technology by any means. lololol.

Oh, so now you know how much energy is present in the universe? And I assume you have some sort of omniscient power which allows you to see this, and piece together that it's not possible? By the way, the sun is an energy source and--as far as I'M aware--it has never run out of energy...Hmm...

As well, it is detectable by many means. If I jump in the air, the Earth is going to be pushed by the source and thus connect me back with the ground.

Thanks for clearing that up! Now it disobeys the laws of physics in another way. Shedding light only directly down. Heck, otherwise people far away from it would see it from an angle making it look elliptical.

A) It's small and low to the ground...Thusly, it sheds down and sometimes to the sides, but just doesn't extend its reach all the way around the Earth.
B) Why would it appear elliptical? The sun is round.

Um... yes. That is the definition of a lie so to speak. That isn't a valid response though. Lying and us not knowing it doesn't lead to a logical conclusion. Saying that the "facts" of a fictitious conspiracy fitting together with the "fact" that the public is ignorant about the fictitious Flat Earth is too much of a coincidence is ridiculous.

Santa is lying about eating our milk and cookies and he actually shoves them up Rudolf's nostrils. Two elements of fiction. But now that they reinforce each other... ooooh. It must be true! 

That's completely erroneous, and not relevant. Your example structure is backwards. If you did it the other way: Santa is shoving our milk and cookies up Rudolf's nostrils, then he is lying about eating them. You would be entirely correct. It's completely irrelevant whether one is fictional or not, because it's a logical conclusion.
IF the Earth is flat, THEN somebody's lying to everyone.
The conspiracy relies on the Earth being flat. Whether it is or it's not is debated (hence this site), but the conspiracy is still a logical conclusion of the flat Earth.

That was in response to my personal experiences after I asked yours. Crappy attempts to disprove, discredit, or alter to support FE also doesn't change the fact that they explain a RE perfectly. The point is I have personal experiences to provide such support as Flat Earthers had none. That is why it can safely be called speculation. I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that contradicts a Round Earth. 

Maybe--just maybe--if you had an unbiased view and didn't WANT to see that the Earth was round (or that it was flat), you'd be able to actually think for yourself.

~D-Draw

Now that multiple people may look at it, it might change so let me quote it.

"The Flat Earth Society is an organization first based in England and later in Lancaster, California that advocates the belief that the Earth is not a sphere but is flat (see also Flat Earth). No modern scientists or religious groups have published support for this belief. This has exposed the society to much outside ridicule and made it a popular metaphor for dogmatic thinking and unreasoning adherence to tradition, with the term Flat-Earther coming to refer to a person who rejects changes in the scientific consensus, and by extension one who lives in the past."

The truth is actually the opposite. Nobody believes in a flat earth, and they are goofing on people who would actually argue that point.

Quote from: L0gic on March 28, 2007, 09:40:03 AM

Now that multiple people may look at it, it might change so let me quote it.

"The Flat Earth Society is an organization first based in England and later in Lancaster, California that advocates the belief that the Earth is not a sphere but is flat (see also Flat Earth). No modern scientists or religious groups have published support for this belief. This has exposed the society to much outside ridicule and made it a popular metaphor for dogmatic thinking and unreasoning adherence to tradition, with the term Flat-Earther coming to refer to a person who rejects changes in the scientific consensus, and by extension one who lives in the past."

The truth is actually the opposite. Nobody believes in a flat earth, and they are goofing on people who would actually argue that point.

Tom does.

Right. It's not a religion. A religion is not JUST a premise of beliefs.

No matter what you call it, its still as naive and foolish. The point is the system of beliefs (called religion or not) that is based no facts can't rival scientific findings. Lets not change the discussion to the definition of words so much as their application and use.

Besides, what else does the cookie belief need to become a religion? Divine intervention? A building as a church? A minimal number of followers?

Quote

Oh? And you know this how? String theory causes problems for this speculation of FE so it is instantly discredited. lol. Making up stuff doesn't mean others will fall for it. Besides, it does a lot for gravity. It creates potential solutions for the Grand Unified Theory. Having the laws of physics 'agree' with each other on a micro and macro perspective does a whole hell of a lot for the RE case.

I know because the String Theory is basically just a shitload of speculation on HOW things COULD happen IF they did happen certain ways. To the Round Earth theory, sure, it works--albeit lacks any evidence--but if it DIDN'T work out that way, then absolutely nothing would be out of place. If you can prove to me otherwise, I'll concede to the point.

Umm... Thats exactly what I was referring to. Discrediting String Theory and calling it a shitload of speculation. It is heavily based on mathematics and I don't see the point in trying to prove a universal negative. If you are in fact fimiliar enough with String Theory to state this, it is much easier for you to tell me the apparent problems with its basis than for me to go through every aspect of it justifying each point. Besides, the point of evidence to back it up applies just as well to Flat Earth itself. Not a single point excluding the possibility of a Round Earth has surfaced.

Quote

umm... Conservation of energy? A power source such that it never runs out, and yet undetectable  by technology by any means. lololol.

Oh, so now you know how much energy is present in the universe? And I assume you have some sort of omniscient power which allows you to see this, and piece together that it's not possible? By the way, the sun is an energy source and--as far as I'M aware--it has never run out of energy...Hmm...

You are correct in saying that the sun has not burned out yet. However, we understand the source of this energy. It's called stellar fusion. The exact atomic processes undergone in the sun releasing energy are understood and are not infinite. While there is no way to be certain of the amount of energy in the universe, energy such as the universal accelerator is far far greater than that of our sun. The unending energy exceeds the power known by any force. Power of nuclear reactions, fusion, or even super novas are finite and detectable. When I said detectable, I was referring to technologically. Look at my previous post. Radiation in all forms from our sun constitute as detectable. That is how we know our sun is there. That and its gravity. This power source accelerating the whole planet and everything on it is complete speculation for what makes things fall back to earth. The only 'detecting' it is dropping pens. No gamma or radio waves, we can't see it, and no experiment can prove it. This effect is explained by gravity which can be detected and studied when observing celestial orbits. Ignoring NASA with no proof that they should be disregarded only helps defend FE. The UA still has no evidence. As for RE supporters, NASA is a legitimate source of evidence. A rival on the FE side needs to be invented from your brilliant creativity. 

As well, it is detectable by many means. If I jump in the air, the Earth is going to be pushed by the source and thus connect me back with the ground.

Like I said, you are making an equally strong case for gravity. Except more evidence for gravity exists beyond this.

Quote

Thanks for clearing that up! Now it disobeys the laws of physics in another way. Shedding light only directly down. Heck, otherwise people far away from it would see it from an angle making it look elliptical.

A) It's small and low to the ground...Thusly, it sheds down and sometimes to the sides, but just doesn't extend its reach all the way around the Earth.
B) Why would it appear elliptical? The sun is round.

Okay, a sphere from the side looks like a circle. A flat sun, or a circle, from the side looks like a line or an ellipse. If you need proof of this, take a piece of paper, draw a circle, and look at it from the side. It appears to stretch and distort into an oval.

That's completely erroneous, and not relevant. Your example structure is backwards. If you did it the other way: Santa is shoving our milk and cookies up Rudolf's nostrils, then he is lying about eating them. You would be entirely correct. It's completely irrelevant whether one is fictional or not, because it's a logical conclusion.

So you admit the chain of logic is very flawed? Good. Read your own post:

As far as the conspiracy goes, it's simply a logical conclusion of the flat Earth.

Putting the lying first and the alternative truth expanding on it is wrong. If you meant to say that you did not mean that the Earth was flat because of such a conspiracy then perhaps proofreading your posts might help. I consider it more than possible that posts can be read different than the intent when posted.

The conspiracy relies on the Earth being flat. Whether it is or it's not is debated (hence this site), but the conspiracy is still a logical conclusion of the flat Earth.

Could be read to answer:
1. How is a conspiracy a logical conclusion showing the Earth is flat?
2. How is a conspiracy the conclusion if the Earth was flat?

IF the Earth is flat, THEN somebody's lying to everyone.

This is the clearest post yet. Which is good. However, I fail to see how that is an argument for a FE. If it isn't, why did you post it?

Quote

That was in response to my personal experiences after I asked yours. Crappy attempts to disprove, discredit, or alter to support FE also doesn't change the fact that they explain a RE perfectly. The point is I have personal experiences to provide such support as Flat Earthers had none. That is why it can safely be called speculation. I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that contradicts a Round Earth. 

Maybe--just maybe--if you had an unbiased view and didn't WANT to see that the Earth was round (or that it was flat), you'd be able to actually think for yourself.

~D-Draw

What makes you think I haven't? I haven't used or listed a single external source as direct evidence without reason. My findings were on my own. The evidence I find simply supports a RE. I wish I could say the same about a FE, but like I have countlessly mentioned, there is none.

tl;dr