Flat Earth Evidence.

I want to try this again. Please post one evidence for a flat earth. (Still no bedford level.) Keep it on topic. I don't want this getting moved again.

Water cannot hold still on a rotating ball so the earth must be flat.

Water cannot hold still on a rotating ball so the earth must be flat.

Incorrect. Gravity explains this. And don't say that it doesn't exist because you have no proof.

Water cannot hold still on a rotating ball so the earth must be flat.

Sure it can, you just have to spin the ball slowly enough. Even just surface tension will do this.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2013, 05:06:34 AM

Water cannot hold still on a rotating ball so the earth must be flat.

Sure it can, you just have to spin the ball slowly enough. Even just surface tension will do this.

Good luck with that.

It can hold still, when the earth formed all liquid on the earth spun as fast as it. If the water spun at a different rate then the earth then friction would cause the water to eventually match speed.

Water cannot hold still on a rotating ball so the earth must be flat.

The same way as you can hold still in a cruising plane.

It can hold still, when the earth formed all liquid on the earth spun as fast as it. If the water spun at a different rate then the earth then friction would cause the water to eventually match speed.

Match speed?

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on September 21, 2013, 10:51:32 PM

It can hold still, when the earth formed all liquid on the earth spun as fast as it. If the water spun at a different rate then the earth then friction would cause the water to eventually match speed.

Match speed?

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2013, 05:06:34 AM

Water cannot hold still on a rotating ball so the earth must be flat.

The same way as you can hold still in a cruising plane.

When you are in a plane cruising at around 900 kph you are actually matching the speed of the plane.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2013, 06:18:12 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on September 21, 2013, 10:51:32 PM

It can hold still, when the earth formed all liquid on the earth spun as fast as it. If the water spun at a different rate then the earth then friction would cause the water to eventually match speed.

Match speed?

Quote from: Cartesian on September 22, 2013, 06:14:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2013, 05:06:34 AM

Water cannot hold still on a rotating ball so the earth must be flat.

The same way as you can hold still in a cruising plane.

When you are in a plane cruising at around 900 kph you are actually matching the speed of the plane.

You are inside a tin can. You are part of that tin can, against atmosphere.
Water is not.

You are inside a tin can. You are part of that tin can, against atmosphere.
Water is not.

Water is inside the confines of it's shorelines, and the shorelines are moving with the planet.  As the earth formed and standing water built up, it would have no choice but to rotate with the planet.

You are inside a tin can. You are part of that tin can, against atmosphere.
Water is not.

Imagine again that you are in a plane cruising at around 900 kph. You go to the loo. Now tell me what you see when you wee. Your wee doesn't fly backward at 900 kph does it? Your wee is flying at the same cruising speed as the plane and everything inside it.

This is begining to drift of topic a little bit. The question is; What is the evidence?

I think REphoenix is after the sources, links to acedemic papers, etc? So that they can be critiqued?

This is begining to drift of topic a little bit. The question is; What is the evidence?

I think REphoenix is after the sources, links to acedemic papers, etc? So that they can be critiqued?

I just want anything really. Experiments, observable evidence, etc.

Railroads are not planned with curvature in mind.

When you go up, you don't see curvature.

Round-earth theory requires the suspension of disbelief. It is a belief system, within which most workers don't really need the truth anyway. The system is gigantic enough that most things work even if not understood correctly.

Railroads are not planned with curvature in mind.

When you go up, you don't see curvature.

Round-earth theory requires the suspension of disbelief. It is a belief system, within which most workers don't really need the truth anyway. The system is gigantic enough that most things work even if not understood correctly.

Suspension of disbelief? so all you have is belief at that point then. Not sure how believing in a round earth require you to not be able to disbelieve things.

Words have meanings, this would all go better if you could remember what they were in each instance.

Railroads are not planned with curvature in mind.

When you go up, you don't see curvature.

Round-earth theory requires the suspension of disbelief. It is a belief system, within which most workers don't really need the truth anyway. The system is gigantic enough that most things work even if not understood correctly.

1. They don't need to be, the curvature is small enough for the rails to bend. And citation needed.
2. Wrong, if you go up high enough and measure, with say a string you can see the curvature.
3. Other way round.

Railroads are not planned with curvature in mind.

How do you know this?  Have you ever planned a railroad?

Railroads are not planned with curvature in mind.

Railroads are built to follow the terrain they are on. If rail tracks can go uphill or downhill, they can go slightly curved too. So, your statement is baseless. And remember this is not CN section, you must provide evidence with every claim you are making.

When you go up, you don't see curvature.

How high did you go? Where were you sitting? Did you compare it to a straight reference? Again, you need to provide evidence with every claim you are making.

And remember this is not CN section, you must provide evidence with every claim you are making.

I don't remember seeing this rule before.  Are you just making rules up to intimidate the new members?

Quote from: Cartesian on September 24, 2013, 02:27:55 AM

And remember this is not CN section, you must provide evidence with every claim you are making.

I don't remember seeing this rule before.  Are you just making rules up to intimidate the new members?

This is a debate section jroa, so I don't expect one liners to be thrown without evidence. That kind of short posts are just unnecessary. You know we want evidence in this forum, and even more in this thread (as the title says). And BTW, odes is only few days younger than me here.

This is a debate section jroa, so I don't expect one liners to be thrown without evidence. That kind of short posts are just unnecessary. You know we want evidence in this forum, and even more in this thread (as the title says).

Please let markjo know about the one liner clause in your new rules.  We have all tried to work with him on this problem, but some RE'ers seem like they just don't want to learn. 

And BTW, odes is only few days younger than me here.

Then why is he not a militant noob as well?  I mean this in the best way possible. 

Quote from: Cartesian on September 24, 2013, 04:16:32 AM

This is a debate section jroa, so I don't expect one liners to be thrown without evidence. That kind of short posts are just unnecessary. You know we want evidence in this forum, and even more in this thread (as the title says).

Please let markjo know about the one liner clause in your new rules.  We have all tried to work with him on this problem, but some RE'ers seem like they just don't want to learn. 

Quote from: Cartesian on September 24, 2013, 04:16:32 AM

And BTW, odes is only few days younger than me here.

Then why is he not a militant noob as well?  I mean this in the best way possible.

I would say you don't consider him a militant noob cause he shares with you the one view that you care about most and that is earths shape. He can spew any other nonsense about celestial gears and how they are caused by god but as long as the world is flat, all other bits are ok.

Militant noobs are the ones who get so angry about the shape of the Earth.  It does not matter what they think the shape is.  They want to march around proclaiming their beliefs and scream at you when your views are not the same as theirs.

Most noobs just ask questions and disagree on answers.  Perma noobs ask the same questions over and over, knowing what the answer will be.  The militants don't really  want answers.  They want to proclaim their faith and tell you how dumb you are for believing otherwise.

Militant noobs are the ones who get so angry about the shape of the Earth.  It does not matter what they think the shape is.  They want to march around proclaiming their beliefs and scream at you when your views are not the same as theirs.

Most noobs just ask questions and disagree on answers.  Perma noobs ask the same questions over and over, knowing what the answer will be.  The militants don't really  want answers.  They want to proclaim their faith and tell you how dumb you are for believing otherwise.

Hey, you can think it's about sharing ideas and all that jazz but if the shoe fits then... it fits.

I am glad we finally agree on something again.   

I am glad we finally agree on something again.   

Thank you for respecting my belief in regards to the lacking capacity for intelligence required to believe the earth is flat.

My shoe fits.  Does yours?

My shoe fits.  Does yours?

Yes, I don't want wrong answers. If that makes me a militant noob then gladly, I detest wrong answers.