Intelligent discussion

ok theres a lot of slagging off of this theory, understandable. so im going to try and have a rational debate with you flat earthers. bring forward your reasons, and i mean REASONS not just "the government is covering up" i need evidence of this.

and dont give me that bullshit about "no evidence for one thing doesnt mean the opposite is correct" because in this case, it does.

I think the earth is flat because when I look outside, I see flat.

I think the earth is flat because if it was a ball, people would fall off the other side, and I've never really been sold on the whole "gravity" thing.

I think the earth is flat because that was my first hunch, and none of the "evidence" to the contrary has been convincing enough for me.

Why do you think the earth is round?

and dont give me that bullshit about "no evidence for one thing doesnt mean the opposite is correct" because in this case, it does.

Really?  Is this just some arbitrary decision you've made, or can you support this ridiculous, nearly medieval, logic?

I think the earth is flat because when I look outside, I see flat.

I think the earth is flat because if it was a ball, people would fall off the other side, and I've never really been sold on the whole "gravity" thing.

I think the earth is flat because that was my first hunch, and none of the "evidence" to the contrary has been convincing enough for me.

Why do you think the earth is round?

Hello believers and non believers...this is my first post on the forum and I would like to state that I agree whole heartedly with the theory of a flat earth.  

I agree that when I look outside of my window, I see no curve in the earth that REer's seem to find so evident.  And as far as the idea of gravity, it truly makes no sense.  We aren't held to the ground by a theory, but instead we are being virtually pressed to the ground by the earths upward movement at 9.8 m/s.  I think the idea of the earth moving up as a flat plane is far more realistic.

I agree that when I look outside of my window, I see no curve in the earth that REer's seem to find so evident.

That's too bad for you.  I mean, it's too bad that that's your only source of knowledge, if it indeed is.

And as far as the idea of gravity, it truly makes no sense.  We aren't held to the ground by a theory, but instead we are being virtually pressed to the ground by the earths upward movement at 9.8 m/s.

Um, isn't the statement, "The Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2" a theory?  I don't think it can hold me to the ground any more than general relativity can.

I think the idea of the earth moving up as a flat plane is far more realistic.

Thanks for contributing your opinion.

-Erasmus

I think the earth is flat because if it was a ball, people would fall off the other side, and I've never really been sold on the whole "gravity" thing.

Firstly, what is there instead of gravity?... Please... Just please don't say "Intelligent Falling" as we all know that site is now seen as a pratical joke.

I agree that when I look outside of my window, I see no curve in the earth that REer's seem to find so evident.

Please before you say something like, don't be retarded... Try taking a holiday or something (hints at Paris) and go to the Eiffel Tower and then say that.

Why do you think the earth is round?

I believe in a Round Earth because the Earth could be put together without a focal point in the center, if the world was flat you would have a center (in a manner of speaking) but all things would point towards this, instead when you talk about a center you mean like a middle point. When I talk about a center I talk about the actual focal point of where the energy is so great it pulls things into it. Hence Gravitiy...

Please if this is wrong (in RE terms) please tell me as I am no physist.

ok let me tell you where my evidence comes from. i've been around the world, to south africa, to the equator and to the antipodes. All by aeroplane. and out of the windows, you can clearly see the shape of the earth. and i think that perspective is much more likely to be accurate than that of someone looking out of their window. are you telling me that the government replaced my eyes with fakes?

Then there is the fact that if gravity doesnt exist, as you people keep insisting, why does the earth have to move at 9.8m/s. That is only the speed at which things fall BECAUSE OF GRAVITY and you wouldnt need your stupid attempt at covering up your ignorance if you didnt at some level accept the truth that gravity is real.

so lets recap. Ive been around the world. Gravity relies on roughly spherical mass to provide a constant gravitational effect all over the earth. When 'down under' the gravity was the same, thus the two theories back each other up. they prove each other's points. IT WORKS.

its not some shite about having lamps in the sky. there is no logic or reasoning behind this. you have to back it up with evidence! you have none. therefore, i (and every other rational thinking, non inbred hick and redneck who sleeps with his sister/brother/cousin/mum) find it more reasonable to accept the most feasible theory, in this case, a ROUND EARTH.

good day, sirs.

therefore, i (and every other rational thinking, non inbred hick and redneck who sleeps with his sister/brother/cousin/mum)

good day, sirs.

I believe thats the best evidence supporting us RE'ers

Firstly, what is there instead of gravity?

The FAQ is quite clear on the subject.

so lets recap. Ive been around the world. Gravity relies on roughly spherical mass to provide a constant gravitational effect all over the earth. When 'down under' the gravity was the same, thus the two theories back each other up. they prove each other's points. IT WORKS.

That's funny, the equivilent FE argument might look something like this:


so lets recap. Ive been accross the world. Linear acceleration relies on roughly flat plane to provide a constant acceleration effect all over the earth. When 'down under' the acceleration was the same, thus the two theories back each other up. they prove each other's points. IT WORKS.

And strangely the FE argument is no less valid.

no, the FAQ states some implausible nonsense about the earth travelling upwards. there is no evidence for this.

and clearly linear acceleration isnt an issue. who taught you physics? your cousin/mother/sister?

no, the FAQ states some implausible nonsense about the earth travelling upwards. there is no evidence for this.

Sure there is. Why, just yesterday I dropped something and the floor accelerated upwards to hit it.

and clearly linear acceleration isnt an issue. who taught you physics? your cousin/mother/sister?

Stellar argument. Although it usually works better when the person you're arguing against is, you know, wrong about something. Since when has linear acceleration become a non-issue?

Quote from: "Undermine Your Logic"

I agree that when I look outside of my window, I see no curve in the earth that REer's seem to find so evident.

That's too bad for you.  I mean, it's too bad that that's your only source of knowledge, if it indeed is.

Quote

And as far as the idea of gravity, it truly makes no sense.  We aren't held to the ground by a theory, but instead we are being virtually pressed to the ground by the earths upward movement at 9.8 m/s.

Um, isn't the statement, "The Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2" a theory?  I don't think it can hold me to the ground any more than general relativity can.

Quote

I think the idea of the earth moving up as a flat plane is far more realistic.

Thanks for contributing your opinion.

-Erasmus

In response to the first part, it isn't my only source of knowledge.  If anything, it was somewhat of an inspiration to look further into FE theory.  Also, referring to the second response to my post, it is a theory, but it happens to be a theory I believe in.  For comparison, look at many that believe in christianity.  They do not state that they believe in the theory of creationism, but instead they know because of their faith that creationism is indeed how we were created (I am not saying that I believe that either).  And Erasmus, thank for respecting my opinions, as the last time I had checked to make sure, this was an open forum of discussion and opinion, so I thank you.

In response to the first part, it isn't my only source of knowledge.

Point was: you don't see the curve.  So what?

Also, referring to the second response to my post, it is a theory, but it happens to be a theory I believe in.

That seems to bear no relation to your objection to the mainstream understanding of why gravity works.  You said,

We aren't held to the ground by a theory,

which to me seems smallminded at best, and at worst, an outright lie, presented for purely inflammatory reasons.

If the former, then because it's quite clear that theories are descriptive, not prescriptive; if the latter, then because you went ahead and stated some other theory and said that it holds us to the ground, i.e., you said, "We're held to the ground by some theory."

And Erasmus, thank for respecting my opinions, as the last time I had checked to make sure, this was an open forum of discussion and opinion, so I thank you.

It is good that we are both well versed in sarcastism.  I don't respect your opinion; opinions are mostly worthless (that's a fact, not an opinion).  If you have an argument to back up any of the things you've stated, I'll respect them provided they are rational.  Until then, what's the point of statements like, "It makes no sense", and "Such-and-such is far more realistic than ..."?

-Erasmus

Sure there is. Why, just yesterday I dropped something and the floor accelerated upwards to hit it.

[Stellar argument. Although it usually works better when the person you're arguing against is, you know, wrong about something. Since when has linear acceleration become a non-issue?

LEt's see if we look at the past 10000 years that most societies have agreed people have been around for, and have a speed of 9 meters per second per second, that puts us at 315,576,000,000 seconds squared ....Darn, my computer doesn't calculate that many digits.....How many times the speed of light? linear acceleration is a big problem.

LEt's see if we look at the past 10000 years that most societies have agreed people have been around for, and have a speed of 9 meters per second per second, that puts us at 315,576,000,000 seconds squared ....Darn, my computer doesn't calculate that many digits.....How many times the speed of light? linear acceleration is a big problem.

Wrong.

my point about linear acceleration and planes was not one of physics. it was the point that from such a high altitude, you can see an obvious curve in the earth's surface.

secondly, linear acceleration doesnt require a flat earth. i dont get what your point is. you arent making any sense (suprise suprise)

my point about linear acceleration ... was not one of physics. it was the point that from such a high altitude, you can see an obvious curve in the earth's surface.

And what does curvature have to do with linear acceleration?

secondly, linear acceleration doesnt require a flat earth.

No, but a flat Earth does require linear acceleration.  Get your conditionals straightened out.

-Erasmus

Quote from: "The_Smee"

my point about linear acceleration ... was not one of physics. it was the point that from such a high altitude, you can see an obvious curve in the earth's surface.

And what does curvature have to do with linear acceleration?

Quote

secondly, linear acceleration doesnt require a flat earth.

No, but a flat Earth does require linear acceleration.  Get your conditionals straightened out.

-Erasmus

my point was that he was questioning my point of perspectives with a dodgy point about physics. trying to dodge the question.

my point was that he was questioning my point of perspectives with a dodgy point about physics. trying to dodge the question.

I think I now understand the exact way(s) in which you are wrong.

To address the "dodging" issue:

Then there is the fact that if gravity doesnt exist, as you people keep insisting, why does the earth have to move at 9.8m/s. That is only the speed at which things fall BECAUSE OF GRAVITY and you wouldnt need your stupid attempt at covering up your ignorance if you didnt at some level accept the truth that gravity is real.

So nobody was dodging your "perspectives" point: they were addressing your other point.

By the way, you may be interesed to know that all of your statements about gravity constitute one gigantic wet noodle of circular reasoning.

To address the "perspectives" issue:  The curvature you see while in an airplane does not demonstrate that the Earth is a sphere.  Also, having visiting many parts of the world does not demonstrate that the Earth is a sphere.  Also, I'm not sure which antipodes you've been too (I'm guessing Australia / New Zealand), but what proof do you have that they were in fact antipodes?

-Erasmus

Can you tell me how this accelerating Earth thoery changes the weight of objects? If the world was speeding, things would fall at the same speed.

But since a thin slice of paper falls really slow, and a anvil would fall really fast. Your accelerating Earth fails to explain this.

Can you tell me how this accelerating Earth thoery changes the weight of objects? If the world was speeding, things would fall at the same speed.

But since a thin slice of paper falls really slow, and a anvil would fall really fast. Your accelerating Earth fails to explain this.

I can't believe I'm reading this...
Sven, you my friend, need to spend a little less time critiquing things you don't understand, and a little more time paying attention in your physics class; things DO fall at the same rate, even accepting gravity.  The reason paper fall slower than an anvil is because of the air under said objects pushing up on the object, and the paper, being so thin, is more suceptible to air resistance.

Honestly Sven, if your going to try to drag this theory through the dirt, at least try to do so competently.

Can you tell me how this accelerating Earth thoery changes the weight of objects? If the world was speeding, things would fall at the same speed.

Everything falls at the same speed on a round earth. A peice of paper only seems to fall slower than an anvil because of air resistance.

Edit: 6strings beat me to it.

hehe, sorry EP.

If the earth accelerates upwards at a uniform rate of 9.8 m/s2 while all objects are stationary relative to it, how does air resistance work? The anvil and the piece of paper are equally stationary yet the anvil will hit the ground first... its not like the ground under the anvil can accelerate faster to meet the anvil earlier, according to the flat earth model the air resistance should be acting effectively on the earth as a whole, yet it is the air resistance profile of individual falling objects that seems to determine how fast they fall through the air. Thus the earth must not be accelerating upwards and you need to find a new model to explain why things fall... (might I suggest that the work of a certain I. Newton is very convincing).

If the earth accelerates upwards at a uniform rate of 9.8 m/s2 while all objects are stationary relative to it, how does air resistance work? The anvil and the piece of paper are equally stationary yet the anvil will hit the ground first... its not like the ground under the anvil can accelerate faster to meet the anvil earlier, according to the flat earth model the air resistance should be acting effectively on the earth as a whole, yet it is the air resistance profile of individual falling objects that seems to determine how fast they fall through the air. Thus the earth must not be accelerating upwards and you need to find a new model to explain why things fall... (might I suggest that the work of a certain I. Newton is very convincing).

not necessarily, because there would still be air moving at 9.8m/s up, and they would provide the air resistance.

ever heard of thomas quine's belief web paradigms? like, the most consistent set of theories is the basis of beliefs? well basically it is floored because of the fact that people can say things like "when the wind blows the trees move their branches. therefore, trees make wind"

in the same way, some people say "all things fall down when dropped, therefore the earth must be moving upwards"

now, what is more likely, that a gigantic rock is moving up through space, with no discernable cause, or that the gravitational forces caused by large objects attracting each other. well, i'll let you decide seeing as some people are too stubborn to realise the truth.


finally, no ones answered my previous question about stars. dodging the bullet?

now, what is more likely, that a gigantic rock is moving up through space, with no discernable cause, or that the gravitational forces caused by large objects attracting each other. well, i'll let you decide seeing as some people are too stubborn to realise the truth.

How can you prove to me that gravity is any more likely than something moving upwards?  From where I stand it sounds like you're just calling magic by the name of "gravity": Why do things fall down?  Errr....they're attracted to large objects?  Really, what proof, besides what's spoon-fed to you by institutions of "education" do you have?  Well...none, but it's just more plausible that really big things attract smaller things than to believe that things fall as a result of a phenomenon I can prove in my everyday life...

Abracadabra.

Quote from: "sven1988uk"

Can you tell me how this accelerating Earth thoery changes the weight of objects? If the world was speeding, things would fall at the same speed.

Everything falls at the same speed on a round earth. A peice of paper only seems to fall slower than an anvil because of air resistance.

Edit: 6strings beat me to it.

But this wouldn't work with your accelrating theory. The world travels upwards? Anything in mid air would have hit the ground. Now if you said gravity can do this, sure air resistance can work. But with an accelerating Earth. Say for example that peice of paper, the Earth would have already cought up to the height of that paper, the same would happen with the anvil.

If even the air was moving at 9.8m/s... This would affect the *weight of things*.

I'm going to start with the final point of your post, because the rest was poorly structured incoherence (or maybe it was very well structured incoherence...)

If even the air was moving at 9.8m/s... This would affect the *weight of things*.

No, it wouldn't.  Crack open a physics textbook, read the bit where it tells you that gravity causes acceleration, and, as such, gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration, then come back and appologize.  Of course, if you have some insight as to why acceleration affects the weight of things, I'd be grateful to hear it, as would the totality of the academic community I'm sure.

But this wouldn't work with your accelrating theory. The world travels upwards? Anything in mid air would have hit the ground. Now if you said gravity can do this, sure air resistance can work. But with an accelerating Earth. Say for example that peice of paper, the Earth would have already cought up to the height of that paper, the same would happen with the anvil.

This is incoherent and unintelligible, please restructure if you wish to attempt to get your point across.[/quote]

Quote

If even the air was moving at 9.8m/s... This would affect the *weight of things*.

No, it wouldn't.  Crack open a physics textbook, read the bit where it tells you that gravity causes acceleration, and, as such, gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration, then come back and appologize.  Of course, if you have some insight as to why acceleration affects the weight of things, I'd be grateful to hear it, as would the totality of the academic community I'm sure.

Meh, I appologize for the fact I just woke when I said that :S
What I ment was wouldn't**

What I ment with the randomness of my first point is...
If an object was in mid air, but the Earth is accelerating at the speed of 9.8m/s, everything would fall at the same speed.
Since people have completely discredited Gravitiy(or tired), this "things falling at the same speed" would remain to be true. But this does not work with certian objects, like I said in the examples.

Air resistance is peoples response for a retort. I can see how this works, if things falls faster than the air is traveling there is a resistance. But since the planet is accelerating upwards, wouldn't it be saying that the object doesn't move but the planet moves to the object, thus objects should fall (or apear to fall) at the same rate.

If there was gravity, things would be pulled the planet yes?
If there was the acceleration theory, things can't be pulled to the planet, but instead the planet keeps things on the ground by moving towards these items.

In saying this, if objects were chucked vertically up or dropped down. For example the anvil. Wind could move this yes? If this acceleration theory is correct now the anvil will not land in the same place.
Since the planet is accelerating round and only keep objects to the floor because it moves towards them, the planet would of moved slightly to the left or right because the way orbit. (or do we orbit? because apparently the sun is smaller than the earth and the sun orbits round us?) We do go round in a circle on the solar system still in the FE theory yes?

Damn... If I could draw this it would be much easier to show...

How would I get an image to show on this? I can't do it through my computer?

look, im not a physicist, im a biologist. i dont know the real theory behind gravity, only the basics. my brother however, has a masters in astrophyics, and could tell you exactly why you're wrong. but you accept magnetism? why isnt that magic? because theres no justification to it being magic. its called being logical and rational.

and your still not answering my questions about the stars.