When I look out my window I see a flat earth extending farther than the eye can see. I do not see a globe spinning on her axis. The RE’ers would have us believe that this is an illusion, that the globe earth is, very conveniently, just large enough to create the perfect experience of living on a plane.
Please explain how a horizon that is filled with obstructions such as trees and mountains is a "perfect experience of living on a plane". And, this possible sphere is 40,000 km in circumference. That is pretty big Tom. I mean, unless you were to go to a perfectly flat area (Good luck, and the ocean doesn't count. There are these things called waves.) and looked out and used precise instruments to measure the horizon, there would be NO detectable curvature just because the Earth is not perfect.
When I look up into the sky I see small celestial lights moving slowly across the skies. I do not see great massive bodies hurtling through space. The RE’ers would have us believe that this is also an illusion, that those bodies are actually massive balls of matter of unimaginable size and distances.
Wow. When I look at the sun, I don't see an object 32 miles across. I see a ball of light I can cover with my thumb. Face it, the Flat Earth Theory has NO PROOF EITHER. I mean, in the time I was here, the height of the sun was changed from something like 300 miles (I think) to 3000, just because of some discrepancies pointed out. And they're still there, Tom. Mostly of that refraction that you came up with out of thin air.
When I study the celestial lights as they pass overhead they appear to move on their own accord. I do not observe the Round Earth spinning. RE dogma would have us believe that this is yet another illusion; that the globe earth is spinning at tremendous speeds over a thousand miles an hour – faster than the speed of sound at the equator – despite us being unable to feel this centripetal acceleration.
Right. So planets just decide to move backwards for a while? And stars at the Southern regions just decides to slow down as the reach the hub of the planet, where they should go faster? The current RE model, according to observation, works. Now, the Flat Earth model works too, in most respects, but the RE one is regular. The Earth is not special, it is like all other planets. The sun is not special, it is like all other stars, etc.
During sunset, when the image of the sun appears to intersect with the earth’s horizon, the RE’ers expect us to believe that this is another illusion. “The sun isn’t really intersecting with the earth” the average RE’er says, “it’s just an illusion!”
What? The FE sun should not intersect the horizon. It should get smaller. I could make a whole thread on this topic. And, the sun and moon should get smaller, but they don't. RE explains it good, FE explains it kind of good, with a couple of kinks.
When I walk off the edge of a chair and observe the surface of the earth, the earth is seen to accelerate up towards me. I do not observe a “bending of space-time” or mysterious sub-atomic particles which permeate all of existence attracting bodies through unexplained quantum effects. RE proponents would have us believe that our experience of an accelerating earth is an illusion, that instead “space is bending,” despite a lack of evidence demonstrating so.
1) You can't see sub-atomic particles. They are small. If you want to see one, you have to look at their movements. We have detected their movements.
2) [equivalence principle]It can be observed both ways, do not make this argument if you want to be taken seriously[/equivalence principle]