Someone debate me

AND his point supports mine internal forces inside the object (gravity) pull everything inwards towards the center when there are no forces from outside the object making it a sphere making it the least surface area per volume because of this.he also expands my argument from liquids to all objects, solids just need more gravity to do.

As you've been told several times, "gravity" does not make a rain drop or lead shot round. Nor is a rain drop round. Nor is the earth's core free of outside forces. You are simply ranting.

and the earth is mostly liquid in the core and mantle

Have you personally verified this or are you just blindly taking someone's word for it?  This is not a how a zetecist would handle it.

Small quantities of mercury become spheriods

Having the flat Earth as a solid slab of rock has it's own problems. It doesn't explain volcanoes, it doesn't explain earthquakes, it doesn't explain geothermal energy and without surface tension what is there to hold together such a huge mass of fractured rock?

Having it as a molten mass with a thin solid crust also has it's own issue. The raindrop analogy works wonderfully here. In both cases you have mass of fluid with something applying a force to one side (in the case of a raindrop it's air resistance, in the case of the flat Earth it's the universal accelerator). Such a situation causes a section of the surface of the liquid to flatten, which seems to fit wonderfully with the FE model. This is until you realise that the flattened surface faces into the direction that the force is being applied from, which would mean that underside of the FE would be flat, with us living on the curved surface.

2. The earth is not a raindrop

The Earth also isn't a liquid.

Small quantities of mercury become spheriods

Again, surface tension. Not "gravity". The earth is not made of liquid mercury.

The phenomenon which logicalskeptic is describing is surface tension, which is a layer that liquids form when exposed to gasses. Regardless of whether or not the Earth is mostly liquid, the liquid alleged is not directly exposed to air, so this is all irrelevant.

BTW, logicalskeptic, in case you can't tell, you're getting trolled bad.

R u kidding no it's not have you seen water in space it's round oh wait you don't think that really happened

R u kidding no it's not have you seen water in space it's round oh wait you don't think that really happened

Actually, it's because of two reasons:

1) This water is most likely caught in the 'whirlpool', and thus is caught in a pseudo-gravityless environment.

2) As aether has qualities much like that of a gas, the liquid has surface tension.

Aether really aether I can't even believe that people can be so willfully ignorant and illogical. I might as well say the earth is a cube and my little brother pushing it causes gravity and light just bends around the cube to make it look round. Special pleading and moving the goal post that's all this claim is. You start at a preconceived notion and use special pleading whenever it's proven wrong. You have no evidence and are illogical in your beliefs. You are no more valid than saying I have an invisible dragon who can't be detected by anything. This is complete and utter nonsense (non-science) is more like it. I hope all of you someday realize how ignorant you are being.

You ask for a debate, and proceed to refuse to do that very thing. I'm finished with you.

Aether really aether I can't even believe that people can be so willfully ignorant and illogical. I might as well say the earth is a cube and my little brother pushing it causes gravity and light just bends around the cube to make it look round. Special pleading and moving the goal post that's all this claim is. You start at a preconceived notion and use special pleading whenever it's proven wrong. You have no evidence and are illogical in your beliefs. You are no more valid than saying I have an invisible dragon who can't be detected by anything. This is complete and utter nonsense (non-science) is more like it. I hope all of you someday realize how ignorant you are being.

The worst thing is, after all, they have cube earth theory

Falling water droplets don't form spheres. They become flattened disks.

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/science_sky/91232

It never ceases to amaze me how Tom Bishop never reads his own quoted material. From the quote above,

In actual fact, even the hamburger-bun shape for raindrops, which is based on the observations of single drops steadily falling through a nearly non-turbulent airstream, is idealized, particularly for heavy rain events. If we could isolate single drops in a rainstorm and follow each from its formation until its final splashdown, we would see, not a tear drop, nor a steady spherical or bun-shaped mass, but an ever-changing, quasi-spherical shape throughout its lifetime.

(emphasis mine).

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 15, 2011, 06:11:14 PM

Falling water droplets don't form spheres. They become flattened disks.

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/science_sky/91232

It never ceases to amaze me how Tom Bishop never reads his own quoted material. From the quote above,

Quote

In actual fact, even the hamburger-bun shape for raindrops, which is based on the observations of single drops steadily falling through a nearly non-turbulent airstream, is idealized, particularly for heavy rain events. If we could isolate single drops in a rainstorm and follow each from its formation until its final splashdown, we would see, not a tear drop, nor a steady spherical or bun-shaped mass, but an ever-changing, quasi-spherical shape throughout its lifetime.

(emphasis mine).

So what exactly is your point?

ItŽs surface tension what keeps them spheroid, but gravity also helps. Also, if you look carefully, you will notice that raindrops do NOT have a unique shape. Most of times they are spheroid, but when they reach terminal speed they become hamburguer-like, which slows downs them, making them spheroid again.

Quote from: trig on September 17, 2011, 06:56:22 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 15, 2011, 06:11:14 PM

Falling water droplets don't form spheres. They become flattened disks.

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/science_sky/91232

It never ceases to amaze me how Tom Bishop never reads his own quoted material. From the quote above,

Quote

In actual fact, even the hamburger-bun shape for raindrops, which is based on the observations of single drops steadily falling through a nearly non-turbulent airstream, is idealized, particularly for heavy rain events. If we could isolate single drops in a rainstorm and follow each from its formation until its final splashdown, we would see, not a tear drop, nor a steady spherical or bun-shaped mass, but an ever-changing, quasi-spherical shape throughout its lifetime.

(emphasis mine).

So what exactly is your point?

It has become a hobby of mine finding just how inane and poor Tom Bishop's research is. Never mind surface tension is irrelevant for a whole planet (gravity is the real force here) but Tom Bishop tells us as a fact that falling water droplets are flat, and they are not. There is a huge difference between a specific droplet size of water falling in non-turbulent wind being a flattened sphere, and "water droplets become flattened disks".

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 17, 2011, 07:12:55 AM

Quote from: trig on September 17, 2011, 06:56:22 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 15, 2011, 06:11:14 PM

Falling water droplets don't form spheres. They become flattened disks.

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/science_sky/91232

It never ceases to amaze me how Tom Bishop never reads his own quoted material. From the quote above,

Quote

In actual fact, even the hamburger-bun shape for raindrops, which is based on the observations of single drops steadily falling through a nearly non-turbulent airstream, is idealized, particularly for heavy rain events. If we could isolate single drops in a rainstorm and follow each from its formation until its final splashdown, we would see, not a tear drop, nor a steady spherical or bun-shaped mass, but an ever-changing, quasi-spherical shape throughout its lifetime.

(emphasis mine).

So what exactly is your point?

It has become a hobby of mine finding just how inane and poor Tom Bishop's research is. Never mind surface tension is irrelevant for a whole planet (gravity is the real force here) but Tom Bishop tells us as a fact that falling water droplets are flat, and they are not. There is a huge difference between a specific droplet size of water falling in non-turbulent wind being a flattened sphere, and "water droplets become flattened disks".

It says right in the bit you quoted that they do, in fact, fall in the shape of a hamburger bun.

It says right in the bit you quoted that they do, in fact, fall in the shape of a hamburger bun.

Yes, in an idealized environment.  Since when is the real world and idealized environment?

It's amazing to me that a particularly zealous, if ignorant, globularist states that the earth must be round like a rain drop or lead shot, and the only argument the rest of you wish to talk about is that Dr. Bishop's observation only rings true in an "idealized environment". If you spent half as much time grooming your fellow globularist, it would be time well spent. Perhaps you could remove a few nits from your own hide before applying the fine-tooth comb to Planists.

It's amazing to me that a particularly zealous, if ignorant, globularist states that the earth must be round like a rain drop or lead shot, and the only argument the rest of you wish to talk about is that Dr. Bishop's observation only rings true in an "idealized environment". If you spent half as much time grooming your fellow globularist, it would be time well spent. Perhaps you could remove a few nits from your own hide before applying the fine-tooth comb to Planists.

The only advantage flattists have over REr's is that they write pretty good disses, even if they add nothing to the discussion.

@Round Earthers

I too believe in a round earth...a round FLAT earth. As an obvious sign of their combined stunted mental growth malnourished by media driven dribble and ridiculous techno babble, the proponents of a spherical world have used a two dimensional verb to name themselves. Completely owned.

Is "round" supposed to be the "two dimensional verb"?

It says right in the bit you quoted that they do, in fact, fall in the shape of a hamburger bun.

Since when is a hamburger bun flat?

If the author was thinking of flat, he would have said "flat as a coin".

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 17, 2011, 09:38:49 AM

It says right in the bit you quoted that they do, in fact, fall in the shape of a hamburger bun.

Since when is a hamburger bun flat?

If the author was thinking of flat, he would have said "flat as a coin".

A hamburger bun is flat in the exact same sense that the Earth is flat.

Quote from: trig on September 17, 2011, 06:40:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 17, 2011, 09:38:49 AM

It says right in the bit you quoted that they do, in fact, fall in the shape of a hamburger bun.

Since when is a hamburger bun flat?

If the author was thinking of flat, he would have said "flat as a coin".

A hamburger bun is flat in the exact same sense that the Earth is flat.

So the earth is flat on the bottom and round on the top? 

Hemisferical Earth Theory 

Oh my... Tom Bishop I thought you were joking.

I actually laughed when you said raindrops are flat.

Have you ever seen a science textbook? As a general rule, physics follows the path of least resistance. Just as a fun experiment, drop a CD from about 6 feet. Watch it fall. It's not going flat side down. It's going to turn because its easier to fall that way than resist the air all the way down. Also, observe water in a zero-gravity environment. It forms a sphere, because that's the most efficient shape.

Please explain HOW a disc can be formed.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 17, 2011, 06:53:46 PM

Quote from: trig on September 17, 2011, 06:40:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 17, 2011, 09:38:49 AM

It says right in the bit you quoted that they do, in fact, fall in the shape of a hamburger bun.

Since when is a hamburger bun flat?

If the author was thinking of flat, he would have said "flat as a coin".

A hamburger bun is flat in the exact same sense that the Earth is flat.

So the earth is flat on the bottom and round on the top? 

Flat on the top and round on the bottom. We are on an upside-down hamburger bun.

Quote from: markjo on September 17, 2011, 07:55:40 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 17, 2011, 06:53:46 PM

Quote from: trig on September 17, 2011, 06:40:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 17, 2011, 09:38:49 AM

It says right in the bit you quoted that they do, in fact, fall in the shape of a hamburger bun.

Since when is a hamburger bun flat?

If the author was thinking of flat, he would have said "flat as a coin".

A hamburger bun is flat in the exact same sense that the Earth is flat.

So the earth is flat on the bottom and round on the top? 

Flat on the top and round on the bottom. We are on an upside-down hamburger bun.

Demons are REŽers! That explains everything...

Quote from: Lord Xenu on October 20, 2011, 02:23:34 AM

Quote from: markjo on September 17, 2011, 07:55:40 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 17, 2011, 06:53:46 PM

Quote from: trig on September 17, 2011, 06:40:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 17, 2011, 09:38:49 AM

It says right in the bit you quoted that they do, in fact, fall in the shape of a hamburger bun.

Since when is a hamburger bun flat?

If the author was thinking of flat, he would have said "flat as a coin".

A hamburger bun is flat in the exact same sense that the Earth is flat.

So the earth is flat on the bottom and round on the top? 

Flat on the top and round on the bottom. We are on an upside-down hamburger bun.

Demons are REŽers! That explains everything...

What bizarre fantasy theories you Round-Earthers concoct.