Lots of questions (I read the FAQ)

First off, yes I read the entire FAQ.

Secondly, I'd like to comment on the way you people handle different opinions. After looking through several threads, the only replies I see are one of the following:

1. Telling the person to read the FAQ, ignoring his or her post entirely.
2. Focusing on a single point in the persons post, making a weak argument (without explaining), and ignoring the rest of his or her post.
3. Making immature insults or comments to him or her.

But enough of that.

Before I get into the subject itself, I'd also like to ask one thing: What is the purpose of this site? Why does it exist? Are you trying to get attention, do you LIKE to argue? I'm sure you are aware this site is seen as ridiculous by most. Your response is most likely "It's here to spread the truth" or something to that effect. I ask again, why? What is so important about knowing the shape of the earth? What's going to happen if people continue to believe the earth is round? Oh wait, news flash, 99.9 percent of the world already think that. I find it funny that you have no answer as to why the government is attempting to cover it up.

On to the ugly bit.


I'll start by pointing out some funny contradictions that exist in your FAQ.

First you say that both the sun and moon are spotlights (one hot light one cold light; I dont understand what you mean by 'cold light') yet later you say that the moon isn't a spotlight, it just reflects light off the sun.

You say that things become lighter at higher altitudes because the moon and stars have gravitational pull. Why doesn't Earth have this pull? It's even larger than the moon is. But you say "gravity" is just the result of the earth accelerating upward.

You say that the force pushing us upward is "dark energy"
What brought you to this conclusion? We dont even know what dark energy is, and you are trying to pass that off as a valid argument? Try again. Why don't you just answer everything with "dark energy"? It would be just as logical according to you, because dark energy is just magical isn't it, it solves all problems! (That was sarcasm.)

I believe this should be enough questions to keep you busy. That is, if you choose to reply to them.

I assume most of your posts will be insulting me, or pointing out something else completely irrelevant. These I will ignore. If you expect me to read any post, you should answer me. That is the point of this thread. You only make yourselves look more ridiculous when you fail to reply with good arguments or ignore the post to say something petty.

To make a summary statement: You people have no real arguments supporting your side, we have arguments that shoot down your side, you have no real arguments shooting down our side, and we have plenty of arguments supporting our side. "The government" hasn't been around forever, people. Where do you think we got "the earth is round" from anyway? There is so much mathematical, visual, and physical (I could go on) proof that it would simply be foolish and ignorant to deny it.

Thank you.

How did you find out about this site?

It was posted on another forum.

But don't try to distract from the point of this thread, answer the questions or you have no business here.

1. Telling the person to read the FAQ, ignoring his or her post entirely.

This is normally because: a) The answer is in the FAQ, who'd a thunk it?
or
b) a simple search would quickly show the OP any flaws in his argument annd we don't feel like dealing with it at the moment beyond the extent that it has already been discussed.

2. Focusing on a single point in the persons post, making a weak argument (without explaining), and ignoring the rest of his or her post.

Normally, the argument tends to focus on a main point, because that point is a faulty assumption which leads to false conclusions (that the earth is round, normally).  I have absolutely no idea what makes you believe that the arguments are weak, but I'd assume it's generally siumply your predjudice blinding you.

3. Making immature insults or comments to him or her.

If you come here making unfounded statements and using faulty logic, I reserve the right to mock you as childishly and as immaturely as I like.

But enough of that.

Finally.

Before I get into the subject itself, I'd also like to ask one thing: What is the purpose of this site? Why does it exist? Are you trying to get attention, do you LIKE to argue? I'm sure you are aware this site is seen as ridiculous by most. Your response is most likely "It's here to spread the truth" or something to that effect. I ask again, why?

Surely it couldn't have anything to do with a Platonic sort of belief that truth is, in and of itself, a noble goal.

What's going to happen if people continue to believe the earth is round? Oh wait, news flash, 99.9 percent of the world already think that.

So, clearly, it couldn't get any worse.  Revealing the truth to people could only help, right?

I find it funny that you have no answer as to why the government is attempting to cover it up.

And I find it funny that you've come here to tell us exactly what you think is wrong with this forum.  Could it be that a conspiracy so well organized that it can keep us from realizing the shape of the earth isn't foolish enough to come and tell us exactly what their objective is?  Surely not, that's preposterous!

On to the ugly bit.

And I had so hoped you were finished.

First you say that both the sun and moon are spotlights (one hot light one cold light; I dont understand what you mean by 'cold light') yet later you say that the moon isn't a spotlight, it just reflects light off the sun.

I believe that these are simply two different models.

You say that things become lighter at higher altitudes because the moon and stars have gravitational pull. Why doesn't Earth have this pull? It's even larger than the moon is. But you say "gravity" is just the result of the earth accelerating upward.

I believe there was already a discussion on ths in which it was concluded that in a model with accelerating earth and the moon and stars generating gravity, there would be another mass, above the earth, whose gravity counteracts that of the earth so that we gain our gravity solely from acceleration.  In the solely acceleration model, however, it is generally claimed that as one moves higher, the air pushes down on one less, making them lighter.

You say that the force pushing us upward is "dark energy"
What brought you to this conclusion? We dont even know what dark energy is, and you are trying to pass that off as a valid argument? Try again. Why don't you just answer everything with "dark energy"?

Had you bothered to avail yourself of the search function, you'd find that these objections have already been raised by some in the community, and that this is nothing new.  They choose to call the force "dark energy" because it appeals to them; clearly there is some as yet unknown force accelerating us, as we are constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2

I believe this should be enough questions to keep you busy. That is, if you choose to reply to them.

I have replied to them, so cease your childish sniping.

I assume most of your posts will be insulting me, or pointing out something else completely irrelevant. These I will ignore. If you expect me to read any post, you should answer me. That is the point of this thread. You only make yourselves look more ridiculous when you fail to reply with good arguments or ignore the post to say something petty.

And you make yourself look slightly ridiculous by wasting a paragraph with your foolish edicts, and acting as though anyone cares what you think.

To make a summary statement: You people have no real arguments supporting your side, we have arguments that shoot down your side, you have no real arguments shooting down our side, and we have plenty of arguments supporting our side. "The government" hasn't been around forever, people. Where do you think we got "the earth is round" from anyway? There is so much mathematical, visual, and physical (I could go on) proof that it would simply be foolish and ignorant to deny it.

I'd like to hear "your side"'s arguments that "shoot down" "our" side, because you have failed to provide any in this longwinded post.  In response to your government point: Neither has Round Earth theory, which , taking my lead from Dionysios, I presume we got from evil jewish-demon-dragon-atheist-capitalists.  Provide said mathematical, visual, and physical proof or shut up.

Your Welcome.

1. Telling the person to read the FAQ, ignoring his or her post entirely.

We say that because the question they asked in answered in the FAQ.

2. Focusing on a single point in the persons post, making a weak argument (without explaining), and ignoring the rest of his or her post.

Is there a law that says we have to answer every point they make in their post? If you make multiple, unconnected points in the same post, don't expect them to be answered by one person.

3. Making immature insults or comments to him or her.

If you look more closely you will realize it is solely the round earthers making the immature, and insulting comments.

Before I get into the subject itself, I'd also like to ask one thing: What is the purpose of this site? Why does it exist?

Because the people who believe the earth is flat want to have a place where they can discuss their beliefs.

First you say that both the sun and moon are spotlights (one hot light one cold light; I dont understand what you mean by 'cold light') yet later you say that the moon isn't a spotlight, it just reflects light off the sun.

No, we said "Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses"

(Possible A) The moon isn't a spotlight; it glows with light from the sun, reflected off the Earth."

As in "the answer we gave previously as to why the moon seems to glow (it shines with a light of its own) may not be correct. And this is another possibility".

But you say "gravity" is just the result of the earth accelerating upward.

We say the earth's gravity is generated by the earth moving upwards. No one ever said other objects can't have gravity.

You say that the force pushing us upward is "dark energy"
What brought you to this conclusion? We dont even know what dark energy is, and you are trying to pass that off as a valid argument? Try again. Why don't you just answer everything with "dark energy"? It would be just as logical according to you, because dark energy is just magical isn't it, it solves all problems! (That was sarcasm.)

So Isaac Newton is allowed to make up an imaginary "force" called gravity and have it be accepted as truth for 300 years, but we aren't?

You know what, I knew it was a bad idea to even register here and attempt to put sense into you people anyway, I think I'll let the rest of the world continue to monumentally dwarf your beliefs, which are full of alternate models (insinuating massive uncertainty on your part) and literally NO mathematical proof.

You want proof that it's round? Maybe use the internet, it's a great resource. Think it's all fake? You have two options, try some of the simple things they say yourself, or continue to live in your ignorant world.

Fair thee well.

Sigh, yet another Round Earther scared off by our inadequate intelligence...what a loss.

Hmmm...

You are very arrogant.

Another thing before I leave though, why can't you explain even the simplest of things, such as how things dip below the horizon as they move away from you? Like the ship question. If you are so convinced, surely something as simple as this could be answered, considering all the other more complicated things you attempt to make up reasons for. It remains unanswered in your FAQ.

Also, the star constellations shift relative to the horizon as you move north and south around the globe, something that could only happen if you were standing on a sphere. (You may have to draw a few diagrams to convince yourself of this.)

What will never make sense to me is how none of you have ever attempted to fly around the earth. If you are so convinced in your belief, surely you could spend the money to get someone to fly you around the world. That way, you would find your proof that the earth is flat and stop worrying about arguing here.

But you won't, because you are afraid of the truth, or being silenced by the government or some other childish reason. Either that or you are too busy wasting all your time sounding tough over the internet. Get over yourselves and stop wasting your life away. You are accomplishing nothing. All this effort could be spent actually getting off your butt and doing something that will easily prove you wrong. But again, you won't.

Speaking of travelling around the world though, I find it funny how in one of your theories, all pilots are in on the conspiracy and will divert from their course to make you think the world is round. Do you know how easy it is to become a pilot? Why don't you try doing it yourself?

And even if one of you did, I'm sure the sudden realization of how stupid you were may put you in a shock. And I'm sure you are so full of yourself with this that you won't even bother attempting. What would happen if the owner of this site came to the realization that it's round? I bet you would claim the government somehow found him and posed as him here.

It's all childish really.

To the Penguin, who says that no FE'er makes insults, that makes me laugh loud and long. Surely you must be kidding, take a look at basically any thread. Even in here.

as though anyone cares what you think.

And that my friends, is the definition of ignorance.
If you didn't care what I think, why were you just arguing? Why did you even reply? Why did you even read the thread? It appears your false logic is more than in just what shape you believe the earth to be in.

To the Penguin, who says that no FE'er makes insults, that makes me laugh loud and long. Surely you must be kidding, take a look at basically any thread.

I didn't say no flat earther makes insults. I said they don't make "immature" insults.
We may insult someone, but when we do it's full of style and panache.

Even in here.

That would be a bad example. We'd need to have a flat eaerther post in here before we can do that.

You are very arrogant.

Yeah, and you're just Mother Theresa when it comes to humility aren't you?

Another thing before I leave though, why can't you explain even the simplest of things, such as how things dip below the horizon as they move away from you? Like the ship question. If you are so convinced, surely something as simple as this could be answered, considering all the other more complicated things you attempt to make up reasons for. It remains unanswered in your FAQ.

Because people like you get angry when we tell you it's the result of optical illusions cause by the atmosphere.

Also, the star constellations shift relative to the horizon as you move north and south around the globe, something that could only happen if you were standing on a sphere. (You may have to draw a few diagrams to convince yourself of this.)

I think there's a thread on this right now, actually, if you're interested.

What will never make sense to me is how none of you have ever attempted to fly around the earth. If you are so convinced in your belief, surely you could spend the money to get someone to fly you around the world. That way, you would find your proof that the earth is flat and stop worrying about arguing here.

Circumnavigation is dealt with in the FAQ.

But you won't, because you are afraid of the truth, or being silenced by the government or some other childish reason. Either that or you are too busy wasting all your time sounding tough over the internet. Get over yourselves and stop wasting your life away. You are accomplishing nothing. All this effort could be spent actually getting off your butt and doing something that will easily prove you wrong. But again, you won't.

If you could suggest any experiment I could perform in real life that would prove the earth is round, I'd be happy to do it, as long as it doesn't involve my spending exorbant amounts of money, or being shot by government agents.

Speaking of travelling around the world though, I find it funny how in one of your theories, all pilots are in on the conspiracy and will divert from their course to make you think the world is round. Do you know how easy it is to become a pilot? Why don't you try doing it yourself?

They don't have to be in on the conspiracy; any lie told enough becomes truth.  They rely on GPS and trust the information they're given.  We however are not so foolish.

And even if one of you did, I'm sure the sudden realization of how stupid you were may put you in a shock. And I'm sure you are so full of yourself with this that you won't even bother attempting. What would happen if the owner of this site came to the realization that it's round? I bet you would claim the government somehow found him and posed as him here.

The fact that the owner of this site is a FEer is neither here nor there, and the only thing that shocks me is your blind arrogance.

It's all childish really.

Thank you, Mother Theresa.

Quote from: "6strings"

as though anyone cares what you think.

And that my friends, is the definition of ignorance.
If you didn't care what I think, why were you just arguing? Why did you even reply? Why did you even read the thread? It appears your false logic is more than in just what shape you believe the earth to be in

Maybe I'm just confrontational eh?  Or enjoy patronizing you?  Or maybe because REers seem to view it as a victory when noone replies to their thread, regardless of te garbage they spout, and I was preventing such an event.

Erm... Wouldn't anyone defending the theory that the earth is flat be a FE-er?

Anyway... I thought it would be interesting to point out that I could easily name many websites full of information (proof) that the earth is a sphere.

This was the first thing google gave me:

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae535.cfm

I have a question though, how exactly did the supposed "ice wall" form? Why is it there, why is it a wall?

6strings, you call me "Mother Theresa" when I say you are arrognant, and then call me arrogant yourself.

Go to the site. And then search for more. If you refuse, that's called ignorance.

I am not one of the RE'ers who think I am victorious if noone replies to my thread. I don't even really care about victory. I'm actively persuing and enjoying this because I enjoy the things you make up. Take that as an insult, I don't care, you are interesting people and it's fun to play with you.

I would also like to point out that you only bothered replying to one point in my post. One of the exact things you condemn flat earthers for doing.

2. Focusing on a single point in the persons post, making a weak argument (without explaining), and ignoring the rest of his or her post.

I have to say, the "RE Scattershot" method is something I am growing more and more tired of every day. Someone comes in, doesn't read the FAQ (or doesn't read it enough to understand it), and posts 50 different "proofs" of the earths shape.

"What about ships? What about nasa? What about earthquakes? What about the sun? What about the ice wall? Why does the government care? What about GPS? I can fly from japan to california without falling off! What about astronauts?"

You have to realize - since you were guilty of this very thing - that all of these questions have been addressed dozens of times, and frankly I get tired of repeating myself. You can only say "Circumnavigation works fine on a flat earth" so many times before you just don't feel like saying it any more.

If you've got a specific, well thought out objection to the FE model, post a specific, well thought out thread addressing it.

no one is actually stupid enough to believe in a flat earth. these people are really just star trek geeks having fun.

You say that the force pushing us upward is "dark energy"
What brought you to this conclusion? We dont even know what dark energy is, and you are trying to pass that off as a valid argument? Try again. Why don't you just answer everything with "dark energy"? It would be just as logical according to you, because dark energy is just magical isn't it, it solves all problems! (That was sarcasm.)

I don't think this issue has been addressed as well as it could have been addressed. What Vegeta apparently does not realize is that "dark energy" and "dark matter" are actually very well-accepted parts of mainstream science. Just check out the Wikipedia entries for dark energy and dark matter. Why should flat Earthers not use dark energy to explain certain phenomena, if that is perfectly ok for the vast majority of cosmologists?

no one is actually stupid enough to believe in a flat earth. these people are really just star trek geeks having fun.

If that were true, it would mean that you are wasting your time arguing with people who have no life whatsoever. As if that wasn't sad enough, you're consistently losing these arguments.

Why should flat Earthers not use dark energy to explain certain phenomena, if that is perfectly ok for the vast majority of cosmologists?

Because cosmologists rightly use it to describe things that they cannot otherwise explain. We can explain ourselves being attracted to the earth via gravity and the earth being round, rather than rely on dark matter and acceleration.

Because cosmologists rightly use it to describe things that they cannot otherwise explain. We can explain ourselves being attracted to the earth via gravity and the earth being round, rather than rely on dark matter and acceleration.

What is the difference between relying on acceleration and relying on gravity?

In fact, scientists have a very hard time explaining the origin of gravity, so explaining the "downward pull" we experience on Earth through acceleration sounds at least as reasonable to me.

Do they now? Gravity is caused by all mass being attracted to each other, a law of the universe. This can be proven if you want. You'd have to ignore that if you wanted to believe a flat earth. Ignore gravity and believe an unknown force pushing the flat earth up at a constant acceleration, for no reason, with no speck of anything which comes close to proof. I'm sold on gravity thank you.

Quote from: "Solid_Granite"

Because cosmologists rightly use it to describe things that they cannot otherwise explain. We can explain ourselves being attracted to the earth via gravity and the earth being round, rather than rely on dark matter and acceleration.

What is the difference between relying on acceleration and relying on gravity?

In fact, scientists have a very hard time explaining the origin of gravity, so explaining the "downward pull" we experience on Earth through acceleration sounds at least as reasonable to me.

no because if it was accelerating upwards then you wouldnt get terminal velocity. you lose star trek geek!

Do they now? Gravity is caused by all mass being attracted to each other, a law of the universe. This can be proven if you want. You'd have to ignore that if you wanted to believe a flat earth. Ignore gravity and believe an unknown force pushing the flat earth up at a constant acceleration, for no reason, with no speck of anything which comes close to proof. I'm sold on gravity thank you.

For the sake of the argument, let's try to be objective for a moment. Let's assume we have never heard anything about a round Earth of a flat Earth before, and now two people representing these two sides are trying to convince us of their opinions. You could hear something like the following:

Round Earther: The Earth is a sphere and we don't fall off because of a force called gravity which pulls everything towards the center of the Earth. We can't explain what causes gravity. By the way, the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace. We can't explain what causes this acceleration, so we have introduced a hypothetical concept of "dark energy".

Flat Earther: The Earth is flat and the reason why things are being pulled towards the Earth's surface is that the Earth is constantly accelerated in one direction. We can't explain what causes this acceleration, so we have introduced a hypothetical concept of "dark energy".

Which of these statements sounds sillier? Note how flat Earthers have to say "We can't explain" only once, because they don't have to explain where that mysterious force called "gravity" originates, i.e. flat Earthers don't have to deal with gravitons or eleven dimensions of M-theory only to explain why an object falls down instead of up. Occam's razor seems to favor the flat Earthers.

no because if it was accelerating upwards then you wouldnt get terminal velocity.

Why not?

you lose star trek geek!

Sorry, you have to do a little better than just saying "You're wrong." You still need actual arguments.

Quote from: "Solid_Granite"

Do they now? Gravity is caused by all mass being attracted to each other, a law of the universe. This can be proven if you want. You'd have to ignore that if you wanted to believe a flat earth. Ignore gravity and believe an unknown force pushing the flat earth up at a constant acceleration, for no reason, with no speck of anything which comes close to proof. I'm sold on gravity thank you.

For the sake of the argument, let's try to be objective for a moment. Let's assume we have never heard anything about a round Earth of a flat Earth before, and now two people representing these two sides are trying to convince us of their opinions. You could hear something like the following:

Round Earther: The Earth is a sphere and we don't fall off because of a force called gravity which pulls everything towards the center of the Earth. We can't explain what causes gravity. By the way, the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace. We can't explain what causes this acceleration, so we have introduced a hypothetical concept of "dark energy".

Flat Earther: The Earth is flat and the reason why things are being pulled towards the Earth's surface is that the Earth is constantly accelerated in one direction. We can't explain what causes this acceleration, so we have introduced a hypothetical concept of "dark energy".

Which of these statements sounds sillier? Note how flat Earthers have to say "We can't explain" only once, because they don't have to explain where that mysterious force called "gravity" originates, i.e. flat Earthers don't have to deal with gravitons or eleven dimensions of M-theory only to explain why an object falls down instead of up. Occam's razor seems to favor the flat Earthers.

Well put, I would love to cupple with you sometime and engage in some thermoerotic flat-earth theory swapping.
-ujb.

Quote from: "Solid_Granite"

Do they now? Gravity is caused by all mass being attracted to each other, a law of the universe. This can be proven if you want. You'd have to ignore that if you wanted to believe a flat earth. Ignore gravity and believe an unknown force pushing the flat earth up at a constant acceleration, for no reason, with no speck of anything which comes close to proof. I'm sold on gravity thank you.

For the sake of the argument, let's try to be objective for a moment. Let's assume we have never heard anything about a round Earth of a flat Earth before, and now two people representing these two sides are trying to convince us of their opinions. You could hear something like the following:

Round Earther: The Earth is a sphere and we don't fall off because of a force called gravity which pulls everything towards the center of the Earth. We can't explain what causes gravity. By the way, the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace. We can't explain what causes this acceleration, so we have introduced a hypothetical concept of "dark energy".

Flat Earther: The Earth is flat and the reason why things are being pulled towards the Earth's surface is that the Earth is constantly accelerated in one direction. We can't explain what causes this acceleration, so we have introduced a hypothetical concept of "dark energy".

Which of these statements sounds sillier? Note how flat Earthers have to say "We can't explain" only once, because they don't have to explain where that mysterious force called "gravity" originates, i.e. flat Earthers don't have to deal with gravitons or eleven dimensions of M-theory only to explain why an object falls down instead of up. Occam's razor seems to favor the flat Earthers.

flat earth sounds sillier because the earth is a sphere. i saw it when i was in space.

flat earth sounds sillier because the earth is a sphere. i saw it when i was in space.

I think something in the paragraph starting with "For the sake of the argument, let's try to be objective for a moment." was lost on you.

Quote from: "bhukka"

flat earth sounds sillier because the earth is a sphere. i saw it when i was in space.

I think something in the paragraph starting with "For the sake of the argument, let's try to be objective for a moment." was lost on you.

have it your way. so for someone to believe in a flat earth you HAVE to have someone who has NEVER heard about the round earth or flat earth before. once they reach the age of 5 however they will be intelligent enough to know it is round.

have it your way. so for someone to believe in a flat earth you HAVE to have someone who has NEVER heard about the round earth or flat earth before.

Being able to follow my argument above is not a precondition for belief in a flat Earth.

All I was hoping for was that someone would be willing to think objectively and ignore any preconceptions for about 60 seconds - something that seems to be too taxing on most people's minds (which is a very scary thought, actually, even though it explains a lot about the state the world is in).

no one is actually stupid enough to believe in a flat earth. these people are really just star trek geeks having fun.

You say that like it's a bad thing.  And I'm more of a StarGate Geek than a Star Trek Geek these days.

no because if it was accelerating upwards then you wouldnt get terminal velocity. you lose star trek geek!

Do you even know what Terminal Velocity is?  What does it have to do with anything mentioned here?