Unanswered Round Earth Questions

1.) Was it Columbus or Magellan who proved that the earth is round? Who did it?

2.) How do planets form?

3.) Why are the magnetic field lines vertical throughout the entire Arctic and Antarctic circles? What causes this?

4.) How did the man who claimed to make a transcontinental journey across Antarctica over the pole do it if compasses don't work there?

5.) If a gyrocompass can detect the rotation of the earth, how does it do it and why does its patent imply that the electronic error correcting device uses a magnetic compass to calibrate itself?

6.) Why does the sun appear much bigger at setting near the horizon than it is overhead at zenith? Why does it still appear large at the horizon in a picture?

7.) Why does the sun lose a large amount of its visible intensity when it is near the horizon?

8.) How does the magnetic North Pole "wander" to and fro over the years without breaking Newtons first law of motion?

9.) How did scientists discover the exact point of magnetic North?

10.) In the Analemma of the Sun, how do you explain the retrograde motion of the sun in its Winter annulus and the prograde motion during its Summer annulus?

11.) How did the axis of the earth become tilted in its rotation around the sun? Why doesn't the gravity from the sun tilt it back into place? Clearly there is an imbalance if every ounce of mass in the sun and earth are attracting one another.

12.) Fully explain the property of matter which causes it to bend space-time.

13.) How did astronomers find the distance of the Astronomical Unit? Did they assume the earth as a globe in their triangulations?

14.) What causes the acceleration of the expanding universe?

15.) How does Earth's core work? Can you provide evidence to go along with your assertions?

16.) Where do ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays come from?

17.) What powers quasars?

18.) Is there a discrete unit of measurement? Is there a discrete unit of time?

19.) Can we develop a general theory of the dynamics of turbulent flows and the motion of granular materials?

20.) What causes ice ages?

21.) Are there earthquake precursors that can lead to useful predictions?

22.) What is the origin of homochirality in nature?

23.) Is there a simple test for determining whether an elliptic curve in the Newtonian model has an infinite number of rational solutions?

24.) Does the Standard Model of particle physics rest on solid mathematical foundations?

25.) What drove cosmic inflation in the early universe? 

26.) How do we know what the sun is composed of?

27.) Does dogma against opposers to "basic fact" exist in scientific circles?

This is FLAT EARTH debate and discussion.  I think you need to move your own thread to general discussion.

Edit:  Is this your attempt to try and weaken the RE defense by pointing out that not everyone (if anyone) knows the answers to all of those off the top of their head?

ERID, don't you think my questions are worth discussing?

If you're unable to come up with answers to basic questions about your own model and belief system, I understand.

Is the first one a joke? Cause Columbus didn't even discover america even though he is credited with it.  Magellan sailed around the Earth with a couple ships If I remember correctly lol.

Question 2 can be answered here http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/mnmsmi/2_3.htm

Click on the thing that says lecture 2 and read it.

Maybe TheEngineer, who is a big boy, will know what board this thread  belongs under.  If you can't move your own thread because it is under the wrong board, I'll understand.

Edit:  C'mon, you can't spell my very simple name correctly?  Also, some of these questions aren't basic at all.  And I didn't create the model, I simply believe that scientists know what they're doing and NASA isn't a huge conspiracy, so I believe in it. 

tom...there is a thread in the clarifications section about asterioids that u haven't bothered to really discuss....so don't get on us for discussing your questions about RE....just as u don't know what stops the atmosphere from falling over the edge, or what is under the earth, and u have ZERO proof of gaurds along the alleged ice wall....we also do not know what causes the acceleration of the expanding universe. so...both sides have things that cannot be unexplained. i'll do some research and try to find answers to the other Q's.

1.) Was it Columbus or Magellan who proved that the earth is round? Who did it?

2.) How do planets form?

3.) Why are the magnetic field lines vertical throughout the entire Arctic and Antarctic circles? What causes this?

4.) How did the man who claimed to make a transcontinental journey across Antarctica over the pole do it if compasses don't work there?

5.) If a gyrocompass can detect the rotation of the earth, how does it do it and why does its patent imply that the electronic error correcting device uses a magnetic compass to calibrate itself?

6.) Why does the sun appear much bigger at setting near the horizon than it is overhead at zenith? Why does it still appear large at the horizon in a picture?

7.) Why does the sun lose a large amount of its visible intensity when it is near the horizon?

8.) How does the magnetic North Pole "wander" to and fro over the years without breaking Newtons first law of motion?

9.) How did scientists discover the exact point of magnetic North?

10.) In the Analemma of the Sun, how do you explain the retrograde motion of the sun in its Winter annulus and the prograde motion during its Summer annulus?

11.) How did the axis of the earth become tilted in its rotation around the sun? Why doesn't the gravity from the sun tilt it back into place? Clearly there is an imbalance if every ounce of mass in the sun and earth are attracting one another.

12.) Fully explain the property of matter which causes it to bend space-time.

13.) How did astronomers find the distance of the Astronomical Unit?

14.) What causes the acceleration of the expanding universe?

15.) How does Earth's core work? Can you provide evidence to go along with your assertions?

16.) Where do ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays come from?

17.) What powers quasars?

18.) Is there a discrete unit of measurement? Is there a discrete unit of time?

19.) Can we develop a general theory of the dynamics of turbulent flows and the motion of granular materials?

20.) What causes ice ages?

21.) Are there earthquake precursors that can lead to useful predictions?

22.) What is the origin of homochirality in nature?

23.) Is there a simple test for determining whether an elliptic curve in the Newtonian model has an infinite number of rational solutions?

24.) Does the Standard Model of particle physics rest on solid mathematical foundations?

25.) What drove cosmic inflation in the early universe? 

26.) Does dogma against "basic fact" exist in scientific circles?

You do realize that most of these you can look up online? If the whole world in involved in this conspiracy and all the public facts are that of a Round Earth, the information is much more abundant. If this is your way of changing a defense into an offense, it's pretty obvious. 

By the way, you never answered my questions here:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=10571.msg171164#msg171164

Tom you are retarded.   I will play your game thought. 


OMGZOR we the re'ers don't know(never mind that there are people that know all the answers to those questions, just not on here.) So please answer them to prove the earth is flat.

1.) Was it Columbus or Magellan who proved that the earth is round? Who did it?

2.) How do planets form?

3.) Why are the magnetic field lines vertical throughout the entire Arctic and Antarctic circles? What causes this?

4.) How did the man who claimed to make a transcontinental journey across Antarctica over the pole do it if compasses don't work there?

5.) If a gyrocompass can detect the rotation of the earth, how does it do it and why does its patent imply that the electronic error correcting device uses a magnetic compass to calibrate itself?

6.) Why does the sun appear much bigger at setting near the horizon than it is overhead at zenith? Why does it still appear large at the horizon in a picture?

7.) Why does the sun lose a large amount of its visible intensity when it is near the horizon?

8.) How does the magnetic North Pole "wander" to and fro over the years without breaking Newtons first law of motion?

9.) How did the scientists discover the exact point of magnetic North?

10.) In the Analemma of the Sun, how do you explain the retrograde motion of the sun in its Winter annulus and the prograde motion during its Summer annulus?

11.) How did the axis of the earth become tilted in its rotation around the sun? Why doesn't the gravity from the sun tilt it back into place?

12.) Fully explain the property of matter which causes it to bend space-time.

13.) How did astronomers find the distance of the Astronomical Unit?

14.) What causes the acceleration of the expanding universe?

15.) How Does Earth's core work? Can you provide evidence to go along with your assertions?

16.) Where do ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays come from?

17.) What powers quasars?

18.) Is there a discrete unit of measurement? Is there a discrete unit of time?

19.) Can we develop a general theory of the dynamics of turbulent flows and the motion of granular materials?

20.) What causes ice ages?

21.) Are there earthquake precursors that can lead to useful predictions?

22.) What is the origin of homochirality in nature?

23.) Is there a simple test for determining whether an elliptic curve in the Newtonian model that has an infinite number of rational solutions?

24.) Does the Standard Model of particle physics rest on solid mathematical foundations?

25.) What drove cosmic inflation in the early universe? 

26.) Does dogma against "basic fact" exist in scientific circles?

I'll answer these in order to the best of my abilities.
Neither Columbus or megellan discovered the earth to be round.
The earth's magnetic field has its ends at the poles. It comes out vertically here and curves over to the other pole.
He found his bearing on the edge and followed it.
How does this relate to the roundness or flatness of the earth?
The sun only looks bigger because you can use the trees, mountains, etc as a reference. The same goes for the moon.
The atmosphere filters the light because there is more for the light to pass through.
The earth has a slight wobble which causes certain bearings to shift.
Magnetometers.
The earth's tilt is the same as it rotates and revolves. The angle is different in relation to the sun in different seasons.
The young earth was hit by a mars-sized object a few billion years ago, causing a tilt. The earth's tilt isnt affectad by the sun's gravity because the earth is a sphere.
Check out General Relativity.
One AU is the distance from the earth to the sun.
See general relativity once again.
It rotates seperately from the rest of the earth, causing a dynamo effect. We can use seismicdata to find out what the layers are.
Quasars, supernovas, Gamma ray bursts, Black hole jets, pulsars.
Quasars are powered by nuclear fusion.
How is this question relevant?
See above.
Planets form when dust clumps together. This continues until it gets really big. These giant balls of rock compress into denser balls of rock and so on, until a planet forms. (gasses are pulled in, comets hit the surface and make water, etc.)
Global warming periods can cause fresh water to disrupt the oceanic currents, cooling the planet.
No.
It's just easier to make in nature.
There's a test, but I doubt it's simple.
I don't think it would be the standard model if it didn't.
The Big Bang.
Science tries to promote basic fact unless it is proven wrong.

1.) Was it Columbus or Magellan who proved that the earth is round? Who did it?

2.) How do planets form?

3.) Why are the magnetic field lines vertical throughout the entire Arctic and Antarctic circles? What causes this?

4.) How did the man who claimed to make a transcontinental journey across Antarctica over the pole do it if compasses don't work there?

5.) If a gyrocompass can detect the rotation of the earth, how does it do it and why does its patent imply that the electronic error correcting device uses a magnetic compass to calibrate itself?

6.) Why does the sun appear much bigger at setting near the horizon than it is overhead at zenith? Why does it still appear large at the horizon in a picture?

7.) Why does the sun lose a large amount of its visible intensity when it is near the horizon?

8.) How does the magnetic North Pole "wander" to and fro over the years without breaking Newtons first law of motion?

9.) How did scientists discover the exact point of magnetic North?

10.) In the Analemma of the Sun, how do you explain the retrograde motion of the sun in its Winter annulus and the prograde motion during its Summer annulus?

11.) How did the axis of the earth become tilted in its rotation around the sun? Why doesn't the gravity from the sun tilt it back into place? Clearly there is an imbalance if every ounce of mass in the sun and earth are attracting one another.

12.) Fully explain the property of matter which causes it to bend space-time.

13.) How did astronomers find the distance of the Astronomical Unit?

14.) What causes the acceleration of the expanding universe?

15.) How does Earth's core work? Can you provide evidence to go along with your assertions?

16.) Where do ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays come from?

17.) What powers quasars?

18.) Is there a discrete unit of measurement? Is there a discrete unit of time?

19.) Can we develop a general theory of the dynamics of turbulent flows and the motion of granular materials?

20.) What causes ice ages?

21.) Are there earthquake precursors that can lead to useful predictions?

22.) What is the origin of homochirality in nature?

23.) Is there a simple test for determining whether an elliptic curve in the Newtonian model has an infinite number of rational solutions?

24.) Does the Standard Model of particle physics rest on solid mathematical foundations?

25.) What drove cosmic inflation in the early universe? 

26.) Does dogma against "basic fact" exist in scientific circles?

1. magellan circumnavigated first.
2. thanks to that gravity thing you don't believe in. for example, the gas giants were formed by swirls of gas in space being attracted to eachother, etc.
3. the earth's core.
4. because he made it from one sea to another sea without having to walk 24000pi miles (or whatever your circumference is, and never encountering a drop off.
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrocompass i've posted that link before. read it this time.
6. this has been gone over many, many times. partly is refraction, that one you love so much. for better explanations read the other threads.
7. for the same reason you always give about the density of the air...remember when you said enough air would be like a steel wall? well...not that intense, that's just stupid, but it does account for some. also scattering of light in the upper atmosphere, which is also why it's blue in day and orange/reddish at sunset/sunrise.
8. the molten core moving around. this has also been discussed elsewhere.
9. remember when we talked about the traces in ferromagnetic metals? we went over this too
10. we started a whole thread on this. in one of your favourite quotes, "use the search". i believe it was theEngineer who explained it quite nicely.
11. why would it? newton's first? clearly there isn't.
12. it's not perfectly known. however the experimental evidence in favour of it is overwhelming, so we're pretty sure it does. there are many theories, string, graviton, etc which you should read up on.
13. also covered. you're just reposting all the questions that we already answered, you got pissed cause we were right so you ran away. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit not only can you read how we did it, but various other methods over our history of people who were close, etc.
14. big bang, tendency to move towards more randomness, entropy, open a book...
15. plenty, including volcanoes & earthquakes, shifting tectonic planes, etc
16. space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray
17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar
18. meter, and second.
19. what? i don't even get this one.
20. just a bit of heating leads to a snowball effect of less reflected light off ice, methane freezing/unfreezing in the permafrost, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
21. seismographs?
22. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homochirality
23. rational solutions? what are you talking about? what difference does that make?
24. based on experimental evidence, yes. open a book. notice how there's a lot of equations in them.
25. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation scroll down to history.
26. that's not even a question.

as noted, 95% of your questions were answerable in other threads or on any site like wiki. and you accuse us REers of not hitting the search or doing our research.

Every one of these questions has been answered in RE. Not to mention that this has nothing to do with proving a flat earth whatsoever. You fail, troll.

*My midnight impression*

Lol@thread.

Awesome post koji, how does the one about elliptic curves even relate to RE/FE?

Besides, my questions to you were on subjects like sunsets and sunrises. Franc T actually made a good point once, and it was this:

A: My theory of earth is correct. It has been shown to be so by experimentation etc.

B: Ok then, describe in detail the nature of every particle and interaction in the universe up to this point.

A: Er...what?

B: Your theory is wrong/incomplete/worse than mine.

Round Earth theory, which you seem to think equates to all modern unanswered questions in science, explains with far greater accuracy and grace the everyday phenomena we witness (see my posts on Rotation and Sunsets which you ran away from, still!). Your theory is wack.

I am still not satisfied with my answers.

You unintelligent Round Earthers are all the same, nothing more than squirrels in a roundabout, trapped in a whirl of inconsistency and delusion by the mumbling pretensions of arrogant 'scientists' who bowed to the fashionable assumptions of their age. The Round Earther is unable to even answer a simple question about his beloved model and belief system. Unable to even come up with a hypothesis, he frenzies to the internet in search of the conflicting conjecture of others.

For the answer to my question of why the field lines are vertical throughout the entire Arctic and Antarctic circles I got the belligerent answer of "the core did it," as a magic wand waved over an important process which has profound effects on navigation. Under no pretense is it considered how the core does this marvelous and far reaching thing. It just does. What caused the core of the earth to become flat?

We are expected to believe that the man who made the transcontinental journey across Antarctica "squared off to a T" at the edge of the Antarctic Circle and set off in a direction for thousands upon thousands of miles in a perfectly straight line without turning a single degree!

At least the Round Earther should attempt to answer some of these important questions. Instead of considering with scrutiny the physical processes of mysterious events, he is dogmatic to the core. Forever following media hype like a dog to the whistle.

To reference the Zetetic. It has become a duty, paramount and imperative, to meet the common Round Earther in the open, avowed, and unyielding rebellion; to declare that his reign of error and confusion is over; and that henceforth, like a falling dynasty, he must shrink and disappear, leaving the throne and the kingdom of science and philosophy to those awakening intellects whose numbers are constantly increasing, and whose march is rapid and irresistible. The soldiers of truth and reason of the Flat Earth Society has drawn the sword, and ere another generation has been educated and grown to maturity, will have forced the usurpers to abdicate. Like the decayed and crumbling trees of an ancient forest, rent and shattered by wind and storm, the hypothetical philosophies, which have hitherto cumbered the civilized world, are unable to resist the elements of experimental and logical criticism; and sooner or later must succumb to their assaults. The axe is uplifted for a final stroke - it is about to fall upon the primitive sphere of the earth, and the blow will surely "cut the cumberer down!"

I love you, Tom!  Don't every change, 'kay?

RE: Tom

Crazy ranting aside, the core's high iron content causes it to act approximately like a dipole, resulting in nearly vertical lines at the poles, these lines are, however, not exactly vertical in the arctic/antarctic circle, as you would know having done absolutely stacks of research. The answers you were given were adequate at the very least. If you can't explain how the sun rises, then what place exactly do you have telling people their explanations for the very nature of gravity or similarly deep topics are unsatisfactory. Tell me why even one of those answers is wrong or incomplete, and I will complete it for you or tell you why it is not possible to do so. Ask away darling!

The mighty sword of round earth justice will fall with a heavy blow on the mantle of the flat earthers, and a glorious day shall be unto man when they are rid of ignorance forever! Chaaaaaaarge!

So Tom, can you come up with answers to questions regarding the flat earth?
I'll give some that have been asked before but havent been answered without a link to a 150 year old book on the internet.
Why do ships seem to sink below the horizon?
Why is there a clear line of a horizon?
Why have people traversed Antarctica which according to FE'ers, doesn't exist?
Why does the earth even have a magnetic field if it's south pole is non-existant?
How do the sun and moon manage to not fall into the earth?
Explain fully the transit of Venus in the flat earth model.
How did the flat earth form?
How did the sun and moon above it form?
Describe the FE universe since it is so different from the RE one.
I'll post more when I think of them.
Now lets keep these threads clear of insults to peoples' intelligence. Tom, you make me sad. This is because instead of saying why the answers I, and a few others gave are unacceptabe, you just call us stupid dogmatic media-hype followers when you yourself are unable to fully explain many FE phenomena without referencing the Equivalence Principle or your dogmatic 150 year old text by the man who allegedly infiltrated the "conspiracy"

SAD AND PATHETIC SAD AND PATHETIC SAD AND PATHETIC SAD AND PATHETIC

I don't think I am profoundly unintelligent. I know you spend your many many posts addressing these concerns, but in every thread since I've been here you've been totally owned, not only giving poor answers but poor answers that have been shown to be wrong by myself in many cases. The Flat Earth's core is made of what exactly? These 'round earth questions' are not exactly exclusive to RE, especially that weird one about the elliptic curves...

Edit: Tom's post disappeared....

the core's high iron content causes it to act approximately like a dipole, resulting in nearly vertical lines at the poles

Completely and entirely unsatisfactory. How do you presume it has iron in its core? How do you presume there is a core at all? What causes a swirling molten core with an iron content to become a dipole? Multitudes of unanswered questions arise from your primitive model of the earth.

So Tom, can you come up with answers to questions regarding the flat earth?

The thousands of FE posts on this forum correctly explain and address your observations. Do take a gander at them. Within my last 2,000 posts I've done nothing but addressed these concerns. You Round Earthers ask the same unendearing questions every single day of the year. Why does the boat sink? Well I'm not going to tell you in this thread, you'll just have to do a little introspection and searching for yourself. The subject of this thread is exploring the glaring flaws in the Round Earth hypothesis.

Mainly, the fallacy of the Round Earth hypothesis stems from an early age of Astronomy when the universe was parceled out into systems, co-existent and illimitable. Suns, planets, galaxies, and comets, were assumed to exist infinite in number and boundless in extent; and to enable the theorists to explain alternating and constantly recurring phenomena, which were everywhere observable. What reasoning! what shameful perversion of intellectual gifts!

Please. Spare me your Science Fiction, spare me your hypocritical unproved answers and technobabble. I've had enough of it. It is a sad state of affairs when not even one person of the thousands I've encountered on this forum, could show or reference one experimental inquiry conducted at any point throughout the history of all time which has proved the earth as a sphere.

Tell me why even one of those answers is wrong or incomplete, and I will complete it for you or tell you why it is not possible to do so.

I demand answers to each of my questions with a modicum of reasoning behind them. Not magic wands. I've grown tired of your magic wands. The whole of Round Earth dogma is composed of stacking one magic word on top of another and then regurgitating it authoritatively to children without a basis of fundamentals. "The big bang did it!", "The natural attraction of matter did it!" It's sickening in the extreme to see the perpetuation of witchcraft and magic in the modern age. Round Earth science is nothing more than a religion.

If you are unable to understand the very basics of your own theory, it speaks volumes of your character and the depth of your delusion.

Tom's been going all out lately.  I think that now that nobody (FEer or REer) actually takes him seriously anymore, he's not even trying to make sense.

Boo, Tom!     You've lost your integrity! 

Maybe he's realised he's on a losing streak and wants to go out with an amusing bang?

Awww damn. Luckily Narcberry comes to the rescue!

Now, sorry to go slightly off topic but is Tom a FE or a RE? Either he's a sarcastic RE or an FE whose intelligence is that of a dead duck that was retarded in its life anyway...


There is evidence against Flat Earth, there is no evidence for it. There is evidence for Round Earth, let alone that a flat Earth would be impossible unless your a creationist, and none against it. There's the Flat Earth rubbish that they think counts as evidence but, I'm sad to say, makes no sense whatsoever. If the Earth was flat how come a few months ago I was in a plane that stayed in the same direction and went right around it?
And why would anyone WANT to doctor photographs from space so they look like the Earth is round?

Tom is FE, and he has answers for your questions. These answers are, in fact, lies.

Ok, right. Any evidence that supports something like that would have to be lies, I suppose.

Sanity I suggest you leave now before you get answers to those questions and lose your sanity!

I am still not satisfied with my answers.

You unintelligent Round Earthers are all the same, nothing more than squirrels in a roundabout, trapped in a whirl of inconsistency and delusion by the mumbling pretensions of arrogant 'scientists' who bowed to the fashionable assumptions of their age. The Round Earther is unable to even answer a simple question about his beloved model and belief system. Unable to even come up with a hypothesis, he frenzies to the internet in search of the conflicting conjecture of others.

For the answer to my question of why the field lines are vertical throughout the entire Arctic and Antarctic circles I got the belligerent answer of "the core did it," as a magic wand waved over an important process which has profound effects on navigation. Under no pretense is it considered how the core does this marvelous and far reaching thing. It just does. What caused the core of the earth to become flat?

We are expected to believe that the man who made the transcontinental journey across Antarctica "squared off to a T" at the edge of the Antarctic Circle and set off in a direction for thousands upon thousands of miles in a perfectly straight line without turning a single degree!

At least the Round Earther should attempt to answer some of these important questions. Instead of considering with scrutiny the physical processes of mysterious events, he is dogmatic to the core. Forever following media hype like a dog to the whistle.

To reference the Zetetic. It has become a duty, paramount and imperative, to meet the common Round Earther in the open, avowed, and unyielding rebellion; to declare that his reign of error and confusion is over; and that henceforth, like a falling dynasty, he must shrink and disappear, leaving the throne and the kingdom of science and philosophy to those awakening intellects whose numbers are constantly increasing, and whose march is rapid and irresistible. The soldiers of truth and reason of the Flat Earth Society has drawn the sword, and ere another generation has been educated and grown to maturity, will have forced the usurpers to abdicate. Like the decayed and crumbling trees of an ancient forest, rent and shattered by wind and storm, the hypothetical philosophies, which have hitherto cumbered the civilized world, are unable to resist the elements of experimental and logical criticism; and sooner or later must succumb to their assaults. The axe is uplifted for a final stroke - it is about to fall upon the primitive sphere of the earth, and the blow will surely "cut the cumberer down!"

That sad rant is like saying feminists are making a worldwide difference. 

How do you presume it has iron in its core? How do you presume there is a core at all?

The earth is a round object, so there is a "core" no matter what it is made of. 

Here is a direct quote from silly little Wiki that you could have easily found for other core questions;

"The average density of Earth is 5515 kg/m3, making it the densest planet in the Solar system. Since the average density of surface material is only around 3000 kg/m3, we must conclude that denser materials exist within Earth's core. Further evidence for the high density core comes from the study of seismology. In its earliest stages, about 4.5 billion (4.5×10^9) years ago, melting would have caused denser substances to sink toward the center in a process called planetary differentiation (see also the iron catastrophe), while less-dense materials would have migrated to the crust. As a result, the core is largely composed of iron (80%), along with nickel and one or more light elements, whereas other dense elements, such as lead and uranium, either are too rare to be significant or tend to bind to lighter elements and thus remain in the crust (see felsic materials)."

Quote

the core's high iron content causes it to act approximately like a dipole, resulting in nearly vertical lines at the poles

Completely and entirely unsatisfactory. How do you presume it has iron in its core? How do you presume there is a core at all? What causes a swirling molten core with an iron content to become a dipole? Multitudes of unanswered questions arise from your primitive model of the earth.

Quote

So Tom, can you come up with answers to questions regarding the flat earth?

The thousands of FE posts on this forum correctly explain and address your observations. Do take a gander at them. Within my last 2,000 posts I've done nothing but addressed these concerns. You Round Earthers ask the same unendearing questions every single day of the year. Why does the boat sink? Well I'm not going to tell you in this thread, you'll just have to do a little introspection and searching for yourself. The subject of this thread is exploring the glaring flaws in the Round Earth hypothesis.

Mainly, the fallacy of the Round Earth hypothesis stems from an early age of Astronomy when the universe was parceled out into systems, co-existent and illimitable. Suns, planets, galaxies, and comets, were assumed to exist infinite in number and boundless in extent; and to enable the theorists to explain alternating and constantly recurring phenomena, which were everywhere observable. What reasoning! what shameful perversion of intellectual gifts!

Please. Spare me your Science Fiction, spare me your hypocritical unproved answers and technobabble. I've had enough of it. It is a sad state of affairs when not even one person of the thousands I've encountered on this forum, could show or reference one experimental inquiry conducted at any point throughout the history of all time which has proved the earth as a sphere.

Quote

Tell me why even one of those answers is wrong or incomplete, and I will complete it for you or tell you why it is not possible to do so.

I demand answers to each of my questions with a modicum of reasoning behind them. Not magic wands. I've grown tired of your magic wands. The whole of Round Earth dogma is composed of stacking one magic word on top of another and then regurgitating it authoritatively to children without a basis of fundamentals. "The big bang did it!", "The natural attraction of matter did it!" It's sickening in the extreme to see the perpetuation of witchcraft and magic in the modern age. Round Earth science is nothing more than a religion.

If you are unable to understand the very basics of your own theory, it speaks volumes of your character and the depth of your delusion.

Humor me.
And speaking of magic wands Tom...

Two words: Shadow object.
Two more: Universal Acceleration

Geez... you're such a hypocrite. At least I can stay coherant and not change theories every time need be.

Quote

the core's high iron content causes it to act approximately like a dipole, resulting in nearly vertical lines at the poles

Completely and entirely unsatisfactory. How do you presume it has iron in its core? How do you presume there is a core at all? What causes a swirling molten core with an iron content to become a dipole? Multitudes of unanswered questions arise from your primitive model of the earth.

Quote

So Tom, can you come up with answers to questions regarding the flat earth?

The thousands of FE posts on this forum correctly explain and address your observations. Do take a gander at them. Within my last 2,000 posts I've done nothing but addressed these concerns. You Round Earthers ask the same unendearing questions every single day of the year. Why does the boat sink? Well I'm not going to tell you in this thread, you'll just have to do a little introspection and searching for yourself. The subject of this thread is exploring the glaring flaws in the Round Earth hypothesis.

Mainly, the fallacy of the Round Earth hypothesis stems from an early age of Astronomy when the universe was parceled out into systems, co-existent and illimitable. Suns, planets, galaxies, and comets, were assumed to exist infinite in number and boundless in extent; and to enable the theorists to explain alternating and constantly recurring phenomena, which were everywhere observable. What reasoning! what shameful perversion of intellectual gifts!

Please. Spare me your Science Fiction, spare me your hypocritical unproved answers and technobabble. I've had enough of it. It is a sad state of affairs when not even one person of the thousands I've encountered on this forum, could show or reference one experimental inquiry conducted at any point throughout the history of all time which has proved the earth as a sphere.

Quote

Tell me why even one of those answers is wrong or incomplete, and I will complete it for you or tell you why it is not possible to do so.

I demand answers to each of my questions with a modicum of reasoning behind them. Not magic wands. I've grown tired of your magic wands. The whole of Round Earth dogma is composed of stacking one magic word on top of another and then regurgitating it authoritatively to children without a basis of fundamentals. "The big bang did it!", "The natural attraction of matter did it!" It's sickening in the extreme to see the perpetuation of witchcraft and magic in the modern age. Round Earth science is nothing more than a religion.

If you are unable to understand the very basics of your own theory, it speaks volumes of your character and the depth of your delusion.

Are you kidding?  You adress ALL our questions?  I've mad a list of holes in Flat Earth theory:

TIDES: Why does the Earth tilt?

SHADOW OBJECT: Has never been discovered, only evidense are shadows that could have been caused by the Earth (probably were).

PERPETUAL DAY AT SOUTH POLE: With Tom's illustration, only half of the South Pole would be illuminated at a time, even if the sun's revolving radius did change.

ACCELERATION SLOWING AT HIGHER ALTITUDES: Explained by Sun/Moon Gravity, but what if neither are directly overhead?  Shouldn't the acceleration increase then?  But it doesn't, the acceleration stays the same.

ATMOSPHERE AND ICE WALL: Why doesn't the atmosphere overflow?  The Ice Wall would have to be 50,000 feet high.

ICE WALL: Has never been seen, except for "pictures" of it, otherwise know as Google results for "glacier".

DISTANCES BELOW EQUATOR: They get bigger.  This doesn't happen in real world.

CORIOLIS EFFECT WITH STORMS/CURRENTS: Caused by Earth's rotation.  Even if a Flat Earth rotated, all

Tom and I have gone over this, and the earth CAN'T tilt to create tides, becuase if it did the numerous analemma's of the sun recorded would be different than they are.