i want both sides to present evidence of their respective theories

i want both FET and RET people to provide evidence of their theories. any evidence is acceptable, however math based, pictures, or video will be more heavily weighed. I will do my best to evaluate both sides equally and fairly without bias, I also might ask questions to clarify things. PLEASE NO INSULTS OR NEGATIVE COMMENTS OR CORRECTIONS in fact it would probably be best if both sides only commented on posts of their own theory.

note: please excuse any grammatical or spelling mistakes i have or may make i never was good in english class

i want both FET and RET people to provide evidence of their theories. any evidence is acceptable, however math based, pictures, or video will be more heavily weighed. I will do my best to evaluate both sides equally and fairly without bias, I also might ask questions to clarify things. PLEASE NO INSULTS OR NEGATIVE COMMENTS OR CORRECTIONS in fact it would probably be best if both sides only commented on posts of their own theory.

note: please excuse any grammatical or spelling mistakes i have or may make i never was good in english class

Ummm.. why don't you just lurk the forums? Considering there are hundreds of not thousands of threads here on FET, going over everything can't be done in one thread. Plus that would just be redundant.

I'm sorry but that's not how this forum works Scientist.

REers present data to disprove FET.  FEers present alternative ideas that, if true, would give the same data but for different reasons.  The REers ask for data about these alternatives: None is ever given.  The REers get frustrated and the thread dies.

I'm sorry but that's not how this forum works Scientist.

REers present data to disprove FET.  FEers present alternative ideas that, if true, would give the same data but for different reasons.  The REers ask for data about these alternatives: None is ever given.  The REers get frustrated and the thread dies.

My favourite is when someone says some crazy therory about how something works, it's unarguably disproven, then is replied with "not everyone subscribes to the "insert theory" theory. You have to wonder, does any 2 flat earther's subscribe to an entier FE theory?

Quote from: Lorddave on August 23, 2010, 12:59:51 PM

I'm sorry but that's not how this forum works Scientist.

REers present data to disprove FET.  FEers present alternative ideas that, if true, would give the same data but for different reasons.  The REers ask for data about these alternatives: None is ever given.  The REers get frustrated and the thread dies.

My favourite is when someone says some crazy therory about how something works, it's unarguably disproven, then is replied with "not everyone subscribes to the "insert theory" theory. You have to wonder, does any 2 flat earther's subscribe to an entier FE theory?

The only time we ever say it is if someone brings up a model that has nothing to do with the one we are talking about. IE we are talking about UA and someone brings up the Infinite Plane model. Even then we don't say, "not everyone subscribes blah blah blah..." we say, "That isn't the model we are talking about."

The only time we ever say it is if someone brings up a model that has nothing to do with the one we are talking about. IE we are talking about UA and someone brings up the Infinite Plane model. Even then we don't say, "not everyone subscribes blah blah blah..." we say, "That isn't the model we are talking about." 

Sorry but that is a poor example, seeing as the viability of the UA does, in some ways, depend on whether the FE is an infinite plane or a finite disc.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on August 28, 2010, 10:51:15 AM

The only time we ever say it is if someone brings up a model that has nothing to do with the one we are talking about. IE we are talking about UA and someone brings up the Infinite Plane model. Even then we don't say, "not everyone subscribes blah blah blah..." we say, "That isn't the model we are talking about." 

Sorry but that is a poor example, seeing as the viability of the UA does, in some ways, depend on whether the FE is an infinite plane or a finite disc.

UA doesn't even exist in the infinite plane model. So when someone says that UA can't work if the Earth is an infinite plane I respond, "Good thing we aren't talking about that model." It is only common sense to assume that if we are talking about UA, it is in the context of the finite disc model.

Quote from: markjo on August 28, 2010, 05:54:56 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on August 28, 2010, 10:51:15 AM

The only time we ever say it is if someone brings up a model that has nothing to do with the one we are talking about. IE we are talking about UA and someone brings up the Infinite Plane model. Even then we don't say, "not everyone subscribes blah blah blah..." we say, "That isn't the model we are talking about." 

Sorry but that is a poor example, seeing as the viability of the UA does, in some ways, depend on whether the FE is an infinite plane or a finite disc.

UA doesn't even exist in the infinite plane model. So when someone says that UA can't work if the Earth is an infinite plane I respond, "Good thing we aren't talking about that model." It is only common sense to assume that if we are talking about UA, it is in the context of the finite disc model.

If only there existed some sort of website which was capable of spelling out all these models and what specifically each represented... Maybe something similar to Wikipedia, so everyone could write a clear, concise definition of what their model represents. That way we might keep track of such things.

Quote from: markjo on August 28, 2010, 05:54:56 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on August 28, 2010, 10:51:15 AM

The only time we ever say it is if someone brings up a model that has nothing to do with the one we are talking about. IE we are talking about UA and someone brings up the Infinite Plane model. Even then we don't say, "not everyone subscribes blah blah blah..." we say, "That isn't the model we are talking about." 

Sorry but that is a poor example, seeing as the viability of the UA does, in some ways, depend on whether the FE is an infinite plane or a finite disc.

UA doesn't even exist in the infinite plane model. So when someone says that UA can't work if the Earth is an infinite plane I respond, "Good thing we aren't talking about that model." It is only common sense to assume that if we are talking about UA, it is in the context of the finite disc model.

Wrong.  The UA exists in Tom Bishop's infinite plane model.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on August 28, 2010, 10:23:27 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 28, 2010, 05:54:56 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on August 28, 2010, 10:51:15 AM

The only time we ever say it is if someone brings up a model that has nothing to do with the one we are talking about. IE we are talking about UA and someone brings up the Infinite Plane model. Even then we don't say, "not everyone subscribes blah blah blah..." we say, "That isn't the model we are talking about." 

Sorry but that is a poor example, seeing as the viability of the UA does, in some ways, depend on whether the FE is an infinite plane or a finite disc.

UA doesn't even exist in the infinite plane model. So when someone says that UA can't work if the Earth is an infinite plane I respond, "Good thing we aren't talking about that model." It is only common sense to assume that if we are talking about UA, it is in the context of the finite disc model.

Wrong.  The UA exists in Tom Bishop's infinite plane model.

Wrong. Tom Bishop does believe in the UA. No, he does not conclude the the FE is infinite, only that its size is unknowable.

Quote from: markjo on August 29, 2010, 07:20:36 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on August 28, 2010, 10:23:27 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 28, 2010, 05:54:56 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on August 28, 2010, 10:51:15 AM

The only time we ever say it is if someone brings up a model that has nothing to do with the one we are talking about. IE we are talking about UA and someone brings up the Infinite Plane model. Even then we don't say, "not everyone subscribes blah blah blah..." we say, "That isn't the model we are talking about." 

Sorry but that is a poor example, seeing as the viability of the UA does, in some ways, depend on whether the FE is an infinite plane or a finite disc.

UA doesn't even exist in the infinite plane model. So when someone says that UA can't work if the Earth is an infinite plane I respond, "Good thing we aren't talking about that model." It is only common sense to assume that if we are talking about UA, it is in the context of the finite disc model.

Wrong.  The UA exists in Tom Bishop's infinite plane model.

Wrong. Tom Bishop does believe in the UA. No, he does not conclude the the FE is infinite, only that its size is unknowable.

How can the size of something be unknowable? It is either infinite or it is finite. If it is finite, the size can be determined with some degree of accuracy.

Quote from: ClockTower on August 29, 2010, 11:52:51 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 29, 2010, 07:20:36 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on August 28, 2010, 10:23:27 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 28, 2010, 05:54:56 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on August 28, 2010, 10:51:15 AM

The only time we ever say it is if someone brings up a model that has nothing to do with the one we are talking about. IE we are talking about UA and someone brings up the Infinite Plane model. Even then we don't say, "not everyone subscribes blah blah blah..." we say, "That isn't the model we are talking about." 

Sorry but that is a poor example, seeing as the viability of the UA does, in some ways, depend on whether the FE is an infinite plane or a finite disc.

UA doesn't even exist in the infinite plane model. So when someone says that UA can't work if the Earth is an infinite plane I respond, "Good thing we aren't talking about that model." It is only common sense to assume that if we are talking about UA, it is in the context of the finite disc model.

Wrong.  The UA exists in Tom Bishop's infinite plane model.

Wrong. Tom Bishop does believe in the UA. No, he does not conclude the the FE is infinite, only that its size is unknowable.

How can the size of something be unknowable? It is either infinite or it is finite. If it is finite, the size can be determined with some degree of accuracy.

Easily. Tom argues that you can't get beyond the desolate areas along the rim to explore beyond the known areas of the FE. I should let him expalin how he knows that.

Quote from: Horatio on August 29, 2010, 03:57:42 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 29, 2010, 11:52:51 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 29, 2010, 07:20:36 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on August 28, 2010, 10:23:27 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 28, 2010, 05:54:56 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on August 28, 2010, 10:51:15 AM

The only time we ever say it is if someone brings up a model that has nothing to do with the one we are talking about. IE we are talking about UA and someone brings up the Infinite Plane model. Even then we don't say, "not everyone subscribes blah blah blah..." we say, "That isn't the model we are talking about." 

Sorry but that is a poor example, seeing as the viability of the UA does, in some ways, depend on whether the FE is an infinite plane or a finite disc.

UA doesn't even exist in the infinite plane model. So when someone says that UA can't work if the Earth is an infinite plane I respond, "Good thing we aren't talking about that model." It is only common sense to assume that if we are talking about UA, it is in the context of the finite disc model.

Wrong.  The UA exists in Tom Bishop's infinite plane model.

Wrong. Tom Bishop does believe in the UA. No, he does not conclude the the FE is infinite, only that its size is unknowable.

How can the size of something be unknowable? It is either infinite or it is finite. If it is finite, the size can be determined with some degree of accuracy.

Easily. Tom argues that you can't get beyond the desolate areas along the rim to explore beyond the known areas of the FE. I should let him expalin how he knows that.

Tom is aware that flying machines exist, right? Planes, airships, UAVs, etc.

Unless he has personally attempted it or has evidence that others have attempted it, I don't see how he could know that is not possible to get beyond the "desolate areas," whatever the hell that is supposed to be.

Quote from: ClockTower on August 29, 2010, 04:05:54 PM

Quote from: Horatio on August 29, 2010, 03:57:42 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 29, 2010, 11:52:51 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 29, 2010, 07:20:36 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on August 28, 2010, 10:23:27 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 28, 2010, 05:54:56 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on August 28, 2010, 10:51:15 AM

The only time we ever say it is if someone brings up a model that has nothing to do with the one we are talking about. IE we are talking about UA and someone brings up the Infinite Plane model. Even then we don't say, "not everyone subscribes blah blah blah..." we say, "That isn't the model we are talking about." 

Sorry but that is a poor example, seeing as the viability of the UA does, in some ways, depend on whether the FE is an infinite plane or a finite disc.

UA doesn't even exist in the infinite plane model. So when someone says that UA can't work if the Earth is an infinite plane I respond, "Good thing we aren't talking about that model." It is only common sense to assume that if we are talking about UA, it is in the context of the finite disc model.

Wrong.  The UA exists in Tom Bishop's infinite plane model.

Wrong. Tom Bishop does believe in the UA. No, he does not conclude the the FE is infinite, only that its size is unknowable.

How can the size of something be unknowable? It is either infinite or it is finite. If it is finite, the size can be determined with some degree of accuracy.

Easily. Tom argues that you can't get beyond the desolate areas along the rim to explore beyond the known areas of the FE. I should let him expalin how he knows that.

Tom is aware that flying machines exist, right? Planes, airships, UAVs, etc.

Unless he has personally attempted it or has evidence that others have attempted it, I don't see how he could know that is not possible to get beyond the "desolate areas," whatever the hell that is supposed to be.

Oh, I never considered that Tom Bishop has a handle on logic or evidence.

Quote from: markjo on August 29, 2010, 07:20:36 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on August 28, 2010, 10:23:27 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 28, 2010, 05:54:56 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on August 28, 2010, 10:51:15 AM

The only time we ever say it is if someone brings up a model that has nothing to do with the one we are talking about. IE we are talking about UA and someone brings up the Infinite Plane model. Even then we don't say, "not everyone subscribes blah blah blah..." we say, "That isn't the model we are talking about." 

Sorry but that is a poor example, seeing as the viability of the UA does, in some ways, depend on whether the FE is an infinite plane or a finite disc.

UA doesn't even exist in the infinite plane model. So when someone says that UA can't work if the Earth is an infinite plane I respond, "Good thing we aren't talking about that model." It is only common sense to assume that if we are talking about UA, it is in the context of the finite disc model.

Wrong.  The UA exists in Tom Bishop's infinite plane model.

Wrong. Tom Bishop does believe in the UA. No, he does not conclude the the FE is infinite, only that its size is unknowable.

Tom has stated many times that he believes that the FE is an infinite plane that bisects the universe.  Lurk moar.

Tom has stated many times that he believes that the FE is an infinite plane that bisects the universe.  Lurk moar.

Please reference: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29967.msg734571#msg734571

Beyond the 150 foot Ice Wall is anyone's guess. How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness. Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham held that knowing the true dimensions of the Earth is something which will be forever be unknowable by man.

Quote from: markjo on August 29, 2010, 04:57:09 PM

Tom has stated many times that he believes that the FE is an infinite plane that bisects the universe.  Lurk moar.

Please reference: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29967.msg734571#msg734571

Quote

Beyond the 150 foot Ice Wall is anyone's guess. How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness. Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham held that knowing the true dimensions of the Earth is something which will be forever be unknowable by man.

Also reference:

Quote

but earth MUST BE FLAT?!?!

The answer is simple. The earth is not any of those celestial bodies.

The earth is different for a number of reasons. Firstly, the earth supports life. Secondly, the earth is a perpetual plane. It's not a celestial body. The earth is an infinite plane which cuts the universe in half. Therefore, there is no analogy to the small celestial bodies which we see above our heads. Thirdly, since the earth is the center of the universe we should expect things to be different here.

Quote

1) When we can observe all other major objects in the night sky as being spherical and in orbit, how can you possibly suggest that Earth is the only object that doesn't conform to this evidence? Please bear in mind that it is impossible to fabricate this effect that i can observe in my own garden through my telescope.

The earth is not any of those celestial bodies. The earth is a infinite plane which stretches in all directions. It is not any type of celestial body. The earth is the only known material world and the only environment known to support life.

Quote

WE

ARE

NOT

SPECIAL

Proof? The earth sure seems special to me. The earth is an infinite plane which bisects the universe. The earth is not a celestial body. The earth is the only known material world and the only environment known to support life.

Lurk moar.

The terms "Infinite Plane" or "Infinite Earth" do not necessarily suggest that the earth is physically infinite. It's an analogy for the seemingly perpetual expanse of land beyond the Antarctic coast.

From http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Atmolayer+Lip+Hypothesis we read -

"The Flat Earth does not necessarily need to be physically infinite in order to contain the atmosphere. Just very big. Often we might hear "infinite earth" from Flat Earth proponents as an analogy for what exists beyond the 150 foot wall of ice at the Antarctic coast; a stretch of land incomprehensible by human standards."

Likewise, if a man makes references an "endless ocean" when looking out at the Pacific Ocean, does it imply that the ocean is physically endless and perpetual? No. It's a term which implies a great expanse of unknown extent and quantity.

The terms Infinite Earth and Infinite Plane have similar meanings: a great expanse of unknown extent and quantity.

The terms "Infinite Plane" or "Infinite Earth" do not necessarily suggest that the earth is physically infinite. It's an analogy for the seemingly perpetual expanse of land beyond the Antarctic coast.

From: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Atmolayer+Lip+Hypothesis

Quote

"The Flat Earth does not necessarily need to be physically infinite in order to contain the atmosphere. Just very big. Often we might hear "infinite earth" from Flat Earth proponents as an analogy for what exists beyond the 150 foot wall of ice at the Antarctic coast; a stretch of land incomprehensible by human standards."

Likewise, if a man makes references an "endless ocean" when looking out at the Pacific Ocean, does it imply that the ocean is physically endless and perpetual? No. It's a term which implies a great expanse of unknown extent and quantity.

I rest my case, laughing at Tom Bishop as usual.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2010, 06:14:01 PM

The terms "Infinite Plane" or "Infinite Earth" do not necessarily suggest that the earth is physically infinite. It's an analogy for the seemingly perpetual expanse of land beyond the Antarctic coast.

From: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Atmolayer+Lip+Hypothesis

Quote

"The Flat Earth does not necessarily need to be physically infinite in order to contain the atmosphere. Just very big. Often we might hear "infinite earth" from Flat Earth proponents as an analogy for what exists beyond the 150 foot wall of ice at the Antarctic coast; a stretch of land incomprehensible by human standards."

Likewise, if a man makes references an "endless ocean" when looking out at the Pacific Ocean, does it imply that the ocean is physically endless and perpetual? No. It's a term which implies a great expanse of unknown extent and quantity.

I rest my case, laughing at Tom Bishop as usual.

Interesting response for losing a debate.  Note to myself: laughter is the best medicine.

Quote from: ClockTower on August 29, 2010, 06:18:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2010, 06:14:01 PM

The terms "Infinite Plane" or "Infinite Earth" do not necessarily suggest that the earth is physically infinite. It's an analogy for the seemingly perpetual expanse of land beyond the Antarctic coast.

From: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Atmolayer+Lip+Hypothesis

Quote

"The Flat Earth does not necessarily need to be physically infinite in order to contain the atmosphere. Just very big. Often we might hear "infinite earth" from Flat Earth proponents as an analogy for what exists beyond the 150 foot wall of ice at the Antarctic coast; a stretch of land incomprehensible by human standards."

Likewise, if a man makes references an "endless ocean" when looking out at the Pacific Ocean, does it imply that the ocean is physically endless and perpetual? No. It's a term which implies a great expanse of unknown extent and quantity.

I rest my case, laughing at Tom Bishop as usual.

Interesting response for losing a debate.  Note to myself: laughter is the best medicine.

Would you care to explain your conclusion that I lost the debate about Tom Bishop's position about the size of the Earth, or is this just another one of your rambling posts?

Quote from: gotham on August 29, 2010, 06:28:22 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 29, 2010, 06:18:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2010, 06:14:01 PM

The terms "Infinite Plane" or "Infinite Earth" do not necessarily suggest that the earth is physically infinite. It's an analogy for the seemingly perpetual expanse of land beyond the Antarctic coast.

From: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Atmolayer+Lip+Hypothesis

Quote

"The Flat Earth does not necessarily need to be physically infinite in order to contain the atmosphere. Just very big. Often we might hear "infinite earth" from Flat Earth proponents as an analogy for what exists beyond the 150 foot wall of ice at the Antarctic coast; a stretch of land incomprehensible by human standards."

Likewise, if a man makes references an "endless ocean" when looking out at the Pacific Ocean, does it imply that the ocean is physically endless and perpetual? No. It's a term which implies a great expanse of unknown extent and quantity.

I rest my case, laughing at Tom Bishop as usual.

Interesting response for losing a debate.  Note to myself: laughter is the best medicine.

Would you care to explain your conclusion that I lost the debate about Tom Bishop's position about the size of the Earth, or is this just another one of your rambling posts?

I will allow you to figure it out.  No rambling needed.

Quote from: ClockTower on August 29, 2010, 06:18:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2010, 06:14:01 PM

The terms "Infinite Plane" or "Infinite Earth" do not necessarily suggest that the earth is physically infinite. It's an analogy for the seemingly perpetual expanse of land beyond the Antarctic coast.

From: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Atmolayer+Lip+Hypothesis

Quote

"The Flat Earth does not necessarily need to be physically infinite in order to contain the atmosphere. Just very big. Often we might hear "infinite earth" from Flat Earth proponents as an analogy for what exists beyond the 150 foot wall of ice at the Antarctic coast; a stretch of land incomprehensible by human standards."

Likewise, if a man makes references an "endless ocean" when looking out at the Pacific Ocean, does it imply that the ocean is physically endless and perpetual? No. It's a term which implies a great expanse of unknown extent and quantity.

I rest my case, laughing at Tom Bishop as usual.

Interesting response for losing a debate.  Note to myself: laughter is the best medicine.

Since when is ending a debate due to ignorance from the opposing party synonymous with losing it?

Edit: Baaaaad typo.

Quote from: gotham on August 29, 2010, 06:28:22 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 29, 2010, 06:18:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2010, 06:14:01 PM

The terms "Infinite Plane" or "Infinite Earth" do not necessarily suggest that the earth is physically infinite. It's an analogy for the seemingly perpetual expanse of land beyond the Antarctic coast.

From: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Atmolayer+Lip+Hypothesis

Quote

"The Flat Earth does not necessarily need to be physically infinite in order to contain the atmosphere. Just very big. Often we might hear "infinite earth" from Flat Earth proponents as an analogy for what exists beyond the 150 foot wall of ice at the Antarctic coast; a stretch of land incomprehensible by human standards."

Likewise, if a man makes references an "endless ocean" when looking out at the Pacific Ocean, does it imply that the ocean is physically endless and perpetual? No. It's a term which implies a great expanse of unknown extent and quantity.

I rest my case, laughing at Tom Bishop as usual.

Interesting response for losing a debate.  Note to myself: laughter is the best medicine.

Since when is ending a debate due to ignorance from the opposing party synonymous with losing it?

Edit: Baaaaad typo.

See previous post.

Quote from: ClockTower on August 29, 2010, 06:32:47 PM

Quote from: gotham on August 29, 2010, 06:28:22 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 29, 2010, 06:18:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2010, 06:14:01 PM

The terms "Infinite Plane" or "Infinite Earth" do not necessarily suggest that the earth is physically infinite. It's an analogy for the seemingly perpetual expanse of land beyond the Antarctic coast.

From: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Atmolayer+Lip+Hypothesis

Quote

"The Flat Earth does not necessarily need to be physically infinite in order to contain the atmosphere. Just very big. Often we might hear "infinite earth" from Flat Earth proponents as an analogy for what exists beyond the 150 foot wall of ice at the Antarctic coast; a stretch of land incomprehensible by human standards."

Likewise, if a man makes references an "endless ocean" when looking out at the Pacific Ocean, does it imply that the ocean is physically endless and perpetual? No. It's a term which implies a great expanse of unknown extent and quantity.

I rest my case, laughing at Tom Bishop as usual.

Interesting response for losing a debate.  Note to myself: laughter is the best medicine.

Would you care to explain your conclusion that I lost the debate about Tom Bishop's position about the size of the Earth, or is this just another one of your rambling posts?

I will allow you to figure it out.  No rambling needed.

So you can't answer the challenge.  I guess we shouldn't expect that much of you.

Quote from: gotham on August 29, 2010, 06:35:04 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 29, 2010, 06:32:47 PM

Quote from: gotham on August 29, 2010, 06:28:22 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 29, 2010, 06:18:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2010, 06:14:01 PM

The terms "Infinite Plane" or "Infinite Earth" do not necessarily suggest that the earth is physically infinite. It's an analogy for the seemingly perpetual expanse of land beyond the Antarctic coast.

From: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Atmolayer+Lip+Hypothesis

Quote

"The Flat Earth does not necessarily need to be physically infinite in order to contain the atmosphere. Just very big. Often we might hear "infinite earth" from Flat Earth proponents as an analogy for what exists beyond the 150 foot wall of ice at the Antarctic coast; a stretch of land incomprehensible by human standards."

Likewise, if a man makes references an "endless ocean" when looking out at the Pacific Ocean, does it imply that the ocean is physically endless and perpetual? No. It's a term which implies a great expanse of unknown extent and quantity.

I rest my case, laughing at Tom Bishop as usual.

Interesting response for losing a debate.  Note to myself: laughter is the best medicine.

Would you care to explain your conclusion that I lost the debate about Tom Bishop's position about the size of the Earth, or is this just another one of your rambling posts?

I will allow you to figure it out.  No rambling needed.

So you can't answer the challenge.  I guess we shouldn't expect that much of you.

You lived the exchange. If you really can't see it for yourself then I really can't help you.

Quote from: ClockTower on August 29, 2010, 06:39:14 PM

Quote from: gotham on August 29, 2010, 06:35:04 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 29, 2010, 06:32:47 PM

Quote from: gotham on August 29, 2010, 06:28:22 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 29, 2010, 06:18:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2010, 06:14:01 PM

The terms "Infinite Plane" or "Infinite Earth" do not necessarily suggest that the earth is physically infinite. It's an analogy for the seemingly perpetual expanse of land beyond the Antarctic coast.

From: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Atmolayer+Lip+Hypothesis

Quote

"The Flat Earth does not necessarily need to be physically infinite in order to contain the atmosphere. Just very big. Often we might hear "infinite earth" from Flat Earth proponents as an analogy for what exists beyond the 150 foot wall of ice at the Antarctic coast; a stretch of land incomprehensible by human standards."

Likewise, if a man makes references an "endless ocean" when looking out at the Pacific Ocean, does it imply that the ocean is physically endless and perpetual? No. It's a term which implies a great expanse of unknown extent and quantity.

I rest my case, laughing at Tom Bishop as usual.

Interesting response for losing a debate.  Note to myself: laughter is the best medicine.

Would you care to explain your conclusion that I lost the debate about Tom Bishop's position about the size of the Earth, or is this just another one of your rambling posts?

I will allow you to figure it out.  No rambling needed.

So you can't answer the challenge.  I guess we shouldn't expect that much of you.

You lived the exchange. If you really can't see it for yourself then I really can't help you.

Sure you can. You made the conclusion. Tell us how you reached it.

Quote from: gotham on August 29, 2010, 06:41:25 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 29, 2010, 06:39:14 PM

Quote from: gotham on August 29, 2010, 06:35:04 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 29, 2010, 06:32:47 PM

Quote from: gotham on August 29, 2010, 06:28:22 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 29, 2010, 06:18:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2010, 06:14:01 PM

The terms "Infinite Plane" or "Infinite Earth" do not necessarily suggest that the earth is physically infinite. It's an analogy for the seemingly perpetual expanse of land beyond the Antarctic coast.

From: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Atmolayer+Lip+Hypothesis

Quote

"The Flat Earth does not necessarily need to be physically infinite in order to contain the atmosphere. Just very big. Often we might hear "infinite earth" from Flat Earth proponents as an analogy for what exists beyond the 150 foot wall of ice at the Antarctic coast; a stretch of land incomprehensible by human standards."

Likewise, if a man makes references an "endless ocean" when looking out at the Pacific Ocean, does it imply that the ocean is physically endless and perpetual? No. It's a term which implies a great expanse of unknown extent and quantity.

I rest my case, laughing at Tom Bishop as usual.

Interesting response for losing a debate.  Note to myself: laughter is the best medicine.

Would you care to explain your conclusion that I lost the debate about Tom Bishop's position about the size of the Earth, or is this just another one of your rambling posts?

I will allow you to figure it out.  No rambling needed.

So you can't answer the challenge.  I guess we shouldn't expect that much of you.

You lived the exchange. If you really can't see it for yourself then I really can't help you.

Sure you can. You made the conclusion. Tell us how you reached it.

If you must, reread. I am not your instructor.

Quote from: ClockTower on August 29, 2010, 06:42:55 PM

Quote from: gotham on August 29, 2010, 06:41:25 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 29, 2010, 06:39:14 PM

Quote from: gotham on August 29, 2010, 06:35:04 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 29, 2010, 06:32:47 PM

Quote from: gotham on August 29, 2010, 06:28:22 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 29, 2010, 06:18:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2010, 06:14:01 PM

The terms "Infinite Plane" or "Infinite Earth" do not necessarily suggest that the earth is physically infinite. It's an analogy for the seemingly perpetual expanse of land beyond the Antarctic coast.

From: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Atmolayer+Lip+Hypothesis

Quote

"The Flat Earth does not necessarily need to be physically infinite in order to contain the atmosphere. Just very big. Often we might hear "infinite earth" from Flat Earth proponents as an analogy for what exists beyond the 150 foot wall of ice at the Antarctic coast; a stretch of land incomprehensible by human standards."

Likewise, if a man makes references an "endless ocean" when looking out at the Pacific Ocean, does it imply that the ocean is physically endless and perpetual? No. It's a term which implies a great expanse of unknown extent and quantity.

I rest my case, laughing at Tom Bishop as usual.

Interesting response for losing a debate.  Note to myself: laughter is the best medicine.

Would you care to explain your conclusion that I lost the debate about Tom Bishop's position about the size of the Earth, or is this just another one of your rambling posts?

I will allow you to figure it out.  No rambling needed.

So you can't answer the challenge.  I guess we shouldn't expect that much of you.

You lived the exchange. If you really can't see it for yourself then I really can't help you.

Sure you can. You made the conclusion. Tell us how you reached it.

If you must, reread. I am not your instructor.

How sad. A standard immature response of a loser. If you can't support your conclusions, please don't post them.

Quote from: ClockTower on August 29, 2010, 06:42:55 PM

Quote from: gotham on August 29, 2010, 06:41:25 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 29, 2010, 06:39:14 PM

Quote from: gotham on August 29, 2010, 06:35:04 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 29, 2010, 06:32:47 PM

Quote from: gotham on August 29, 2010, 06:28:22 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 29, 2010, 06:18:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2010, 06:14:01 PM

The terms "Infinite Plane" or "Infinite Earth" do not necessarily suggest that the earth is physically infinite. It's an analogy for the seemingly perpetual expanse of land beyond the Antarctic coast.

From: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Atmolayer+Lip+Hypothesis

Quote

"The Flat Earth does not necessarily need to be physically infinite in order to contain the atmosphere. Just very big. Often we might hear "infinite earth" from Flat Earth proponents as an analogy for what exists beyond the 150 foot wall of ice at the Antarctic coast; a stretch of land incomprehensible by human standards."

Likewise, if a man makes references an "endless ocean" when looking out at the Pacific Ocean, does it imply that the ocean is physically endless and perpetual? No. It's a term which implies a great expanse of unknown extent and quantity.

I rest my case, laughing at Tom Bishop as usual.

Interesting response for losing a debate.  Note to myself: laughter is the best medicine.

Would you care to explain your conclusion that I lost the debate about Tom Bishop's position about the size of the Earth, or is this just another one of your rambling posts?

I will allow you to figure it out.  No rambling needed.

So you can't answer the challenge.  I guess we shouldn't expect that much of you.

You lived the exchange. If you really can't see it for yourself then I really can't help you.

Sure you can. You made the conclusion. Tell us how you reached it.

If you must, reread. I am not your instructor.

Hmm, I suppose FETists regularly follow this reasoning; you know, because you won't give us any evidence for anything you say.

ZING!