Why can we see the moon?

Correct me if I'm wrong on FT. But they seem to think everything is above earth right? If so that means the moon is above earth and the sun is above the moon and the earth? So how can we possibly see the moon without sunlight? If you understand how light works then you will indeed know that light behind the moon would result in a black dot(Like solar eclipses, when the moon hides the sun).  So for us to even see the moon in the sky it means there is a light source behind us. This is not possible with a flat earth because there would be no curvature to let light in.

Just a word of caution,  Sceptimatic does not hold the views that most other flat earthers do.

Don't take everything you already know as gospel. Think outside the box and realize the moon may be emitting it's own light.

Don't take everything you already know as gospel. Think outside the box and realize the moon may be emitting it's own light.

So where would the moon be getting this light from? Earth by it self emits no light all except for man made stuff or fires. So if the moon is made out of pure rocks and dust why would it emit light at all?

Don't take everything you already know as gospel. Think outside the box and realize the moon may be emitting it's own light.

Sure, it's a good quality to have to try and learn things on your own... But humans have short lives and it's an even better quality to have some sense of respect for humanity and build upon the works of great the great thinkers accomplishments, discoveries and inventions of the past. If every person started from scratch and didn't build upon collective knowledge we wouldn't be where we are today and you and I wouldn't be having a conversation on a web forum thousands of miles away from one another. Be pragmatic, accept things that work and stand the test of verifiability until they are PROVEN false. This has happened to the idea of a flat earth, everyone thought it was so and it was proven wrong. Now we know it's round and humanity will continue to believe that until proven otherwise.

Quote from: hoppy on June 27, 2013, 07:12:03 AM

Don't take everything you already know as gospel. Think outside the box and realize the moon may be emitting it's own light.

So where would the moon be getting this light from? Earth by it self emits no light all except for man made stuff or fires. So if the moon is made out of pure rocks and dust why would it emit light at all?

No man has been to the moon, it is just a guess that it is made of rock.

It's impossible for the earth to be a solid round ball. Nothing could survive on it, because it could not replenish itself.
The earth is definitely flat like half an ball with an ice dome and a diamond? bottom.

It's impossible for the earth to be round but not everything else in the universe like the moon, planets, stars...? Please explain what you mean about replenish?

Quote from: stevo5800 on June 27, 2013, 07:18:53 AM

Quote from: hoppy on June 27, 2013, 07:12:03 AM

Don't take everything you already know as gospel. Think outside the box and realize the moon may be emitting it's own light.

So where would the moon be getting this light from? Earth by it self emits no light all except for man made stuff or fires. So if the moon is made out of pure rocks and dust why would it emit light at all?

No man has been to the moon, it is just a guess that it is made of rock.

I can see it pretty clear with my telescope. Are telescopes part of this conspiracy theory?

It's impossible for the earth to be round but not everything else in the universe like the moon, planets, stars...? Please explain what you mean about replenish?

Ok, technically, the Earth is round...circular.  So we are ALL Round Earthers.     But it's FLAT like a disk.  So maybe you all should call yourselves Sphere Earthers.  Anyway, I'd be careful about using that word, impossible.  Earth is much different from anything else in the universe.

Quote from: stevo5800 on June 27, 2013, 07:30:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 07:24:06 AM

It's impossible for the earth to be a solid round ball. Nothing could survive on it, because it could not replenish itself.
The earth is definitely flat like half an ball with an ice dome and a diamond? bottom.

It's impossible for the earth to be round but not everything else in the universe like the moon, planets, stars...? Please explain what you mean about replenish?

Nothing on earth is destroyed...it's simply recycled back to its original mass.
Rain is a simple example.
Water molecules are expanded into the air and are pushed up by denser molecules as they are agitating through them until they can't go any higher due to equal density being achieved, so it falls back to earth because it's massing into its more densely compressed water molecules which makes it heavier than the air molecules below, so it falls back to the ground and so on.
Everything is recycled.

What makes you think your recycle argument favors a flat earth?

Quote from: rottingroom on June 27, 2013, 08:03:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 07:57:11 AM

Quote from: stevo5800 on June 27, 2013, 07:30:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 07:24:06 AM

It's impossible for the earth to be a solid round ball. Nothing could survive on it, because it could not replenish itself.
The earth is definitely flat like half an ball with an ice dome and a diamond? bottom.

It's impossible for the earth to be round but not everything else in the universe like the moon, planets, stars...? Please explain what you mean about replenish?

Nothing on earth is destroyed...it's simply recycled back to its original mass.
Rain is a simple example.
Water molecules are expanded into the air and are pushed up by denser molecules as they are agitating through them until they can't go any higher due to equal density being achieved, so it falls back to earth because it's massing into its more densely compressed water molecules which makes it heavier than the air molecules below, so it falls back to the ground and so on.
Everything is recycled.

What makes you think your recycle argument favors a flat earth?

Because a dome needs a foundation, so a round earth with a round flowing atmosphere is not going to be very sensible , is it?

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you implying that a dome is necessary for things to be recycled?

Quote from: stevo5800 on June 27, 2013, 07:30:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 07:24:06 AM

It's impossible for the earth to be a solid round ball. Nothing could survive on it, because it could not replenish itself.
The earth is definitely flat like half an ball with an ice dome and a diamond? bottom.

It's impossible for the earth to be round but not everything else in the universe like the moon, planets, stars...? Please explain what you mean about replenish?

Nothing on earth is destroyed...it's simply recycled back to its original mass.
Rain is a simple example.
Water molecules are expanded into the air and are pushed up by denser molecules as they are agitating through them until they can't go any higher due to equal density being achieved, so it falls back to earth because it's massing into its more densely compressed water molecules which makes it heavier than the air molecules below, so it falls back to the ground and so on.
Everything is recycled.

Sounds like RE. Water evaporates into the atmosphere creating clouds. Clouds get too heavy so it starts to rain, depending on the temperature it might even snow. I don't really see how the earth recycles it self in flat earth. Round earth has a core. Actually most of the inner earth is liquid. So we pretty much sit on a crust of dirt.  In round earth everything moves so it makes sense that the core is hot because it's very active. In flat earth nothing moves so how is the planet recycling it self if nothing is moving? Mountains for example are made out of 2 piece of land colliding with each other(Look up Plate Tectonics. Mont Everast and other mountains get taller every year because of this) so when the earth moves it pushes the other piece of land up creating mountains and even making them higher.

Quote from: stevo5800 on June 27, 2013, 07:31:35 AM

Quote from: hoppy on June 27, 2013, 07:26:29 AM

Quote from: stevo5800 on June 27, 2013, 07:18:53 AM

Quote from: hoppy on June 27, 2013, 07:12:03 AM

Don't take everything you already know as gospel. Think outside the box and realize the moon may be emitting it's own light.

So where would the moon be getting this light from? Earth by it self emits no light all except for man made stuff or fires. So if the moon is made out of pure rocks and dust why would it emit light at all?

No man has been to the moon, it is just a guess that it is made of rock.

I can see it pretty clear with my telescope. Are telescopes part of this conspiracy theory?

You can see the moon because it's in our atmosphere.

Never knew the moon was in our atmosphere. Man mission to the moon just got easier? I think you missed the point. I think you don't understand how light works because someone else said maybe the moon has light witch is the most legit answer here up to date. So lets say the moon was in the atmosphere or even near it, that means the sun is above it. The sun is what gives us sunlight so if you block it guess what it gets dark out(Except maybe some star lights). So if the moon is indeed over the earth, that means sun is over top of it at all times. In flat earth the sun never touches the moon when it's dark out because it's on the other half of the flat disc. So it's impossible to see something without a light source is all I'm saying. It be like driving with no lights at night a a back road that has no street lights and barely any houses, you wouldn't be able to see much because there is no light source.

Quote from: rottingroom on June 27, 2013, 08:12:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 08:06:07 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on June 27, 2013, 08:03:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 07:57:11 AM

Quote from: stevo5800 on June 27, 2013, 07:30:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 07:24:06 AM

It's impossible for the earth to be a solid round ball. Nothing could survive on it, because it could not replenish itself.
The earth is definitely flat like half an ball with an ice dome and a diamond? bottom.

It's impossible for the earth to be round but not everything else in the universe like the moon, planets, stars...? Please explain what you mean about replenish?

Nothing on earth is destroyed...it's simply recycled back to its original mass.
Rain is a simple example.
Water molecules are expanded into the air and are pushed up by denser molecules as they are agitating through them until they can't go any higher due to equal density being achieved, so it falls back to earth because it's massing into its more densely compressed water molecules which makes it heavier than the air molecules below, so it falls back to the ground and so on.
Everything is recycled.

What makes you think your recycle argument favors a flat earth?

Because a dome needs a foundation, so a round earth with a round flowing atmosphere is not going to be very sensible , is it?

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you implying that a dome is necessary for things to be recycled?

Yes..
Top and bottom.

You know that the atmosphere as science currently understands it is a sufficient dome to stop things from escaping. It doesn't need to be made out of ice or anything like that. So basically there is a dome and it's just the atmosphere.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 08:13:55 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on June 27, 2013, 08:12:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 08:06:07 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on June 27, 2013, 08:03:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 07:57:11 AM

Quote from: stevo5800 on June 27, 2013, 07:30:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 07:24:06 AM

It's impossible for the earth to be a solid round ball. Nothing could survive on it, because it could not replenish itself.
The earth is definitely flat like half an ball with an ice dome and a diamond? bottom.

It's impossible for the earth to be round but not everything else in the universe like the moon, planets, stars...? Please explain what you mean about replenish?

Nothing on earth is destroyed...it's simply recycled back to its original mass.
Rain is a simple example.
Water molecules are expanded into the air and are pushed up by denser molecules as they are agitating through them until they can't go any higher due to equal density being achieved, so it falls back to earth because it's massing into its more densely compressed water molecules which makes it heavier than the air molecules below, so it falls back to the ground and so on.
Everything is recycled.

What makes you think your recycle argument favors a flat earth?

Because a dome needs a foundation, so a round earth with a round flowing atmosphere is not going to be very sensible , is it?

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you implying that a dome is necessary for things to be recycled?

Yes..
Top and bottom.

You know that the atmosphere as science currently understands it is a sufficient dome to stop things from escaping. It doesn't need to be made out of ice or anything like that. So basically there is a dome and it's just the atmosphere.

It actually goes a lot more in depth then that. The atmosphere contains 5 layers

-The troposphere
-stratosphere
-mesosphere
-thermosphere
-exosphere

And then it's all surrounded by the earth magnetic field with is generated by the north and south pole. The magnetic field is what saves us from stuff like space radiation and the atmosphere keeps things like air inside our planet.

Quote from: rottingroom on June 27, 2013, 08:17:17 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 08:13:55 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on June 27, 2013, 08:12:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 08:06:07 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on June 27, 2013, 08:03:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 07:57:11 AM

Quote from: stevo5800 on June 27, 2013, 07:30:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 07:24:06 AM

It's impossible for the earth to be a solid round ball. Nothing could survive on it, because it could not replenish itself.
The earth is definitely flat like half an ball with an ice dome and a diamond? bottom.

It's impossible for the earth to be round but not everything else in the universe like the moon, planets, stars...? Please explain what you mean about replenish?

Nothing on earth is destroyed...it's simply recycled back to its original mass.
Rain is a simple example.
Water molecules are expanded into the air and are pushed up by denser molecules as they are agitating through them until they can't go any higher due to equal density being achieved, so it falls back to earth because it's massing into its more densely compressed water molecules which makes it heavier than the air molecules below, so it falls back to the ground and so on.
Everything is recycled.

What makes you think your recycle argument favors a flat earth?

Because a dome needs a foundation, so a round earth with a round flowing atmosphere is not going to be very sensible , is it?

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you implying that a dome is necessary for things to be recycled?

Yes..
Top and bottom.

You know that the atmosphere as science currently understands it is a sufficient dome to stop things from escaping. It doesn't need to be made out of ice or anything like that. So basically there is a dome and it's just the atmosphere.

It actually goes a lot more in depth then that. The atmosphere contains 5 layers

-The troposphere
-stratosphere
-mesosphere
-thermosphere
-exosphere

And then it's all surrounded by the earth magnetic field with is generated by the north and south pole. The magnetic field is what saves us from stuff like space radiation and the atmosphere keeps things like air inside our planet.

Yes, I'm aware of all that. I'm a meteorologist for the US Navy. I just used the term atmosphere to describe all those layers. I did omit the magnetic field though so thanks.

Quote from: rottingroom on June 27, 2013, 08:17:17 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 08:13:55 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on June 27, 2013, 08:12:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 08:06:07 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on June 27, 2013, 08:03:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 07:57:11 AM

Quote from: stevo5800 on June 27, 2013, 07:30:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 07:24:06 AM

It's impossible for the earth to be a solid round ball. Nothing could survive on it, because it could not replenish itself.
The earth is definitely flat like half an ball with an ice dome and a diamond? bottom.

It's impossible for the earth to be round but not everything else in the universe like the moon, planets, stars...? Please explain what you mean about replenish?

Nothing on earth is destroyed...it's simply recycled back to its original mass.
Rain is a simple example.
Water molecules are expanded into the air and are pushed up by denser molecules as they are agitating through them until they can't go any higher due to equal density being achieved, so it falls back to earth because it's massing into its more densely compressed water molecules which makes it heavier than the air molecules below, so it falls back to the ground and so on.
Everything is recycled.

What makes you think your recycle argument favors a flat earth?

Because a dome needs a foundation, so a round earth with a round flowing atmosphere is not going to be very sensible , is it?

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you implying that a dome is necessary for things to be recycled?

Yes..
Top and bottom.

You know that the atmosphere as science currently understands it is a sufficient dome to stop things from escaping. It doesn't need to be made out of ice or anything like that. So basically there is a dome and it's just the atmosphere.

How can it be a dome without ice?

The question should be why would we even see through ice? Put ice in your freezer do you see through it? No because there is such a change in temperature that the ice gets kinda foggy. So if the atmosphere was ice then we wouldn't see much and it would be raining a lot because of constant weather changes. Another example would be all the ice at the polls can you see through them?

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 08:34:38 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on June 27, 2013, 08:17:17 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 08:13:55 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on June 27, 2013, 08:12:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 08:06:07 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on June 27, 2013, 08:03:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 07:57:11 AM

Quote from: stevo5800 on June 27, 2013, 07:30:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 07:24:06 AM

It's impossible for the earth to be a solid round ball. Nothing could survive on it, because it could not replenish itself.
The earth is definitely flat like half an ball with an ice dome and a diamond? bottom.

It's impossible for the earth to be round but not everything else in the universe like the moon, planets, stars...? Please explain what you mean about replenish?

Nothing on earth is destroyed...it's simply recycled back to its original mass.
Rain is a simple example.
Water molecules are expanded into the air and are pushed up by denser molecules as they are agitating through them until they can't go any higher due to equal density being achieved, so it falls back to earth because it's massing into its more densely compressed water molecules which makes it heavier than the air molecules below, so it falls back to the ground and so on.
Everything is recycled.

What makes you think your recycle argument favors a flat earth?

Because a dome needs a foundation, so a round earth with a round flowing atmosphere is not going to be very sensible , is it?

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you implying that a dome is necessary for things to be recycled?

Yes..
Top and bottom.

You know that the atmosphere as science currently understands it is a sufficient dome to stop things from escaping. It doesn't need to be made out of ice or anything like that. So basically there is a dome and it's just the atmosphere.

How can it be a dome without ice?

The question should be why would we even see through ice? Put ice in your freezer do you see through it? No because there is such a change in temperature that the ice gets kinda foggy. So if the atmosphere was ice then we wouldn't see much and it would be raining a lot because of constant weather changes. Another example would be all the ice at the polls can you see through them?

Scepti insists that it's a dome and that celestial objects are inside of it. It doesn't matter if we call it a dome though, I tried to understand why he thinks there is a dome and he revealed to me that it's because everything recycles and doesn't escape the Earth. So I'm just explaining to him that our atmosphere does that job just fine, it doesn't have to be made of ice.

Quote from: rottingroom

Scepti insists that it's a dome and that celestial objects are inside of it. It doesn't matter if we call it a dome though, I tried to understand why he thinks there is a dome and he revealed to me that it's because everything recycles and doesn't escape the Earth. So I'm just explaining to him that our atmosphere does that job just fine, it doesn't have to be made of ice.

It would have to be made of ice, if you think about it.

You've convinced me there! It has to be made of ice if you think about it. Sure!

Obviously I am being completely sarcastic.  The point here is that the line of thinking that led you to "dome" is that it recycles or retains stuff. So by your own logic, it doesn't have to be a dome, it just has to be able to do the job you prerequisite. By no means is the atmosphere a dome in the literal sense like an ice dome would be or like the roof of a stadium but that isn't what you require. We just need something that can accomplish this task and the atmosphere does just that.

Quote from: rottingroom on June 27, 2013, 09:32:03 AM

Obviously I am being completely sarcastic.  The point here is that the line of thinking that led you to "dome" is that it recycles or retains stuff. So by your own logic, it doesn't have to be a dome, it just has to be able to do the job you prerequisite. By no means is the atmosphere a dome in the literal sense like an ice dome would be or like the roof of a stadium but that isn't what you require. We just need something that can accomplish this task and the atmosphere does just that.

You might never get your head around it , unless you have a critical look at the model you have been brought up to accept.
That's not a dig, because I used to just accept it, before I decided to have a critical look at it and found it to be so pathetic that I just sat back and laughed at the thought that they have suckered us all.

Saying "I am right because I looked at it critically and you are indoctrinated" is not an argument. I look at it critically bud. Please do not make implications that you are above anyone cause you most certainly are far from that.  Make a real argument for once, trying making some damn sense.

Quote from: rottingroom on June 27, 2013, 09:32:03 AM

Obviously I am being completely sarcastic.  The point here is that the line of thinking that led you to "dome" is that it recycles or retains stuff. So by your own logic, it doesn't have to be a dome, it just has to be able to do the job you prerequisite. By no means is the atmosphere a dome in the literal sense like an ice dome would be or like the roof of a stadium but that isn't what you require. We just need something that can accomplish this task and the atmosphere does just that.

You might never get your head around it , unless you have a critical look at the model you have been brought up to accept.
That's not a dig, because I used to just accept it, before I decided to have a critical look at it and found it to be so pathetic that I just sat back and laughed at the thought that they have suckered us all.

Well one big issue with flat earth is that many have different theory's. So there are probably thousands upon thousands of flat earth theory(And some are very different then others). Mean while there is only one round earth theory. To be honest to prove the world is flat, if it really was, it would not be hard. One could get a helium balloon and get images of the ends of the earth. Imagine launching a helium balloon in lets say Antarctica. You would see nothing on one side and you would see the complete planet on the other side.

Quote from: rottingroom on June 27, 2013, 09:47:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 09:38:29 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on June 27, 2013, 09:32:03 AM

Obviously I am being completely sarcastic.  The point here is that the line of thinking that led you to "dome" is that it recycles or retains stuff. So by your own logic, it doesn't have to be a dome, it just has to be able to do the job you prerequisite. By no means is the atmosphere a dome in the literal sense like an ice dome would be or like the roof of a stadium but that isn't what you require. We just need something that can accomplish this task and the atmosphere does just that.

You might never get your head around it , unless you have a critical look at the model you have been brought up to accept.
That's not a dig, because I used to just accept it, before I decided to have a critical look at it and found it to be so pathetic that I just sat back and laughed at the thought that they have suckered us all.

Saying "I am right because I looked at it critically and you are indoctrinated" is not an argument. I look at it critically bud. Please do not make implications that you are above anyone cause you most certainly are far from that.  Make a real argument for once, trying making some damn sense.

I'm above no one but I play you people how you try and play me.
The thing is..tit for tat gets boring and counter productive, so I use the sin bin mentality...basically I stick people like you in it when you start getting above yourselves. 

Isn't that just how you say indoctrinated mainstream science works? Just silence or ignore anyone who doesn't agree?

Quote from: rottingroom on June 27, 2013, 09:47:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 09:38:29 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on June 27, 2013, 09:32:03 AM

Obviously I am being completely sarcastic.  The point here is that the line of thinking that led you to "dome" is that it recycles or retains stuff. So by your own logic, it doesn't have to be a dome, it just has to be able to do the job you prerequisite. By no means is the atmosphere a dome in the literal sense like an ice dome would be or like the roof of a stadium but that isn't what you require. We just need something that can accomplish this task and the atmosphere does just that.

You might never get your head around it , unless you have a critical look at the model you have been brought up to accept.
That's not a dig, because I used to just accept it, before I decided to have a critical look at it and found it to be so pathetic that I just sat back and laughed at the thought that they have suckered us all.

Saying "I am right because I looked at it critically and you are indoctrinated" is not an argument. I look at it critically bud. Please do not make implications that you are above anyone cause you most certainly are far from that.  Make a real argument for once, trying making some damn sense.

I'm above no one but I play you people how you try and play me.
The thing is..tit for tat gets boring and counter productive, so I use the sin bin mentality...basically I stick people like you in it when you start getting above yourselves. 

Nobody is trying to play you scepti. We genuinely think your balls off the wall insane. You deserve all the ridicule you feel.

If the Earth was really spinning, wouldn't it gradually get faster and faster?

Quote from: stevo5800

Well one big issue with flat earth is that many have different theory's. So there are probably thousands upon thousands of flat earth theory(And some are very different then others). Mean while there is only one round earth theory. To be honest to prove the world is flat, if it really was, it would not be hard. One could get a helium balloon and get images of the ends of the earth. Imagine launching a helium balloon in lets say Antarctica. You would see nothing on one side and you would see the complete planet on the other side.

You need to understand how big the earth is.
It's not as small as you think it is.
The part we live on and can exist on, is huge and spread out around a circle with a big ice middle and a huge outer circle of ice probably thousands of miles wide, rising as it spans out.

It's funny you should mention that people need to understand how "big" the Earth is. That is precisely what flat earther's fail to understand when they say "use your eyes, it looks flat". The Earth is in fact so huge that relative to whatever part of the sphere you are on, you are so small that you can't instinctively observe how round it is. Your observable sample of the Earth is too small to notice how gradual (relative to you) that it's curve is.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 09:56:57 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on June 27, 2013, 09:47:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 09:38:29 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on June 27, 2013, 09:32:03 AM

Obviously I am being completely sarcastic.  The point here is that the line of thinking that led you to "dome" is that it recycles or retains stuff. So by your own logic, it doesn't have to be a dome, it just has to be able to do the job you prerequisite. By no means is the atmosphere a dome in the literal sense like an ice dome would be or like the roof of a stadium but that isn't what you require. We just need something that can accomplish this task and the atmosphere does just that.

You might never get your head around it , unless you have a critical look at the model you have been brought up to accept.
That's not a dig, because I used to just accept it, before I decided to have a critical look at it and found it to be so pathetic that I just sat back and laughed at the thought that they have suckered us all.

Saying "I am right because I looked at it critically and you are indoctrinated" is not an argument. I look at it critically bud. Please do not make implications that you are above anyone cause you most certainly are far from that.  Make a real argument for once, trying making some damn sense.

I'm above no one but I play you people how you try and play me.
The thing is..tit for tat gets boring and counter productive, so I use the sin bin mentality...basically I stick people like you in it when you start getting above yourselves. 

Nobody is trying to play you scepti. We genuinely think your balls off the wall insane. You deserve all the ridicule you feel.

Honestly I'm just trying to get their point of view. I highly doubt anything would convince me to a flat earth. Honestly though if you think about it, if the earth was flat, that would mean everything we know about science is wrong. And I mean everything. And we all have done science experiments and I've yet done one witch did not work. Also flat earth has a major lighting problem. I think a lot of them don't understand how light works or there might be extra light sources. The only reason we see anything is because of light. In flat earth all the side and the moon is getting 0 light from underneath so that causes moon and horizon issues.

Not to mention

-Volcano
-Thermal Activity
-Tornado, hurricane..
-Wind
-Time
-Days, season, year(Flat earth model would not match current data, then other people can out with all these other crazy models)
And the entire universe....

Quote from: Shmeggley on June 27, 2013, 09:58:55 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 09:56:57 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on June 27, 2013, 09:47:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2013, 09:38:29 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on June 27, 2013, 09:32:03 AM

Obviously I am being completely sarcastic.  The point here is that the line of thinking that led you to "dome" is that it recycles or retains stuff. So by your own logic, it doesn't have to be a dome, it just has to be able to do the job you prerequisite. By no means is the atmosphere a dome in the literal sense like an ice dome would be or like the roof of a stadium but that isn't what you require. We just need something that can accomplish this task and the atmosphere does just that.

You might never get your head around it , unless you have a critical look at the model you have been brought up to accept.
That's not a dig, because I used to just accept it, before I decided to have a critical look at it and found it to be so pathetic that I just sat back and laughed at the thought that they have suckered us all.

Saying "I am right because I looked at it critically and you are indoctrinated" is not an argument. I look at it critically bud. Please do not make implications that you are above anyone cause you most certainly are far from that.  Make a real argument for once, trying making some damn sense.

I'm above no one but I play you people how you try and play me.
The thing is..tit for tat gets boring and counter productive, so I use the sin bin mentality...basically I stick people like you in it when you start getting above yourselves. 

Isn't that just how you say indoctrinated mainstream science works? Just silence or ignore anyone who doesn't agree?

No.
You see, mainstream plays ridicule and I prefer to silence those that attempt it.
There is a huge difference.

I've seen you do both, many times on this forum. Half your argument (if not more) is usually rolling your eyes at the idea that the Earth rotates.

No.
You see, mainstream plays ridicule and I prefer to silence those that attempt it.
There is a huge difference.

Yes, it's quite obvious when someone is open-mindly, considering and discussing a subject rather than having already made up their mind about it and only there to ridicule and discourage.

If the Earth was really spinning, wouldn't it gradually get faster and faster?

In what part of the sentence "The Earth is spinning" is there an implication of accelerated spin? A top on a table will cease spinning because there is a force (a table for example) acting upon it. Space has much less force acting upon the Earth although it is said that the Earth slowly but surely is slowing down.

If the Earth was really spinning, wouldn't it gradually get faster and faster?

No, why would it? When have you ever seen a spinning object get faster and faster?