Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.

  • 69 Replies
  • 5048 Views
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #30 on: October 23, 2013, 05:11:25 AM »
scepti, which FE map is the most correct one?
The closest one is this one.


http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/2047/vfbk.png

So can you explain how the South Pole can get 24 hour sun during December?
Which part?
It's a big circle of ice around the earth.

Let's just say the nearest edge for argument sake.
The nearest edge to what?

Anything above Antartic Circle (66 33′ 44″ S) will get midnight sun on December solstice:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Circle

So how do you explain midnight sun in Antarctic scepti?
I think, therefore I am

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23351
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #31 on: October 23, 2013, 05:23:13 AM »
Before I answer, I have a few questions.

If your south pole has 24 hours of sun, then the north pole has 24 hours of darkness, right?

How many days a year does your south pole have 24 hours sunlight?

How many days a year does the north pole have 24 hours of sun light?

How many days a year does your south pole have 24 hours of darkness?

How many days a year does the north pole have 24 hours of darkness?

Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #32 on: October 23, 2013, 05:34:32 AM »
Before I answer, I have a few questions.

If your south pole has 24 hours of sun, then the north pole has 24 hours of darkness, right?

How many days a year does your south pole have 24 hours sunlight?

How many days a year does the north pole have 24 hours of sun light?

How many days a year does your south pole have 24 hours of darkness?

How many days a year does the north pole have 24 hours of darkness?

It doesn't matter. How can the sun light anything above (or below depending how you look at it) Antartic Circle at once?
I think, therefore I am

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23351
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #33 on: October 23, 2013, 05:48:42 AM »
Before I answer, I have a few questions.

If your south pole has 24 hours of sun, then the north pole has 24 hours of darkness, right?

How many days a year does your south pole have 24 hours sunlight?

How many days a year does the north pole have 24 hours of sun light?

How many days a year does your south pole have 24 hours of darkness?

How many days a year does the north pole have 24 hours of darkness?

It doesn't matter. How can the sun light anything above (or below depending how you look at it) Antartic Circle at once?
For me to get a good take on things, I need you to answer my questions. You are well versed on round earth, aren't you, so educate me, so I can work it all out.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #34 on: October 23, 2013, 06:08:46 AM »
Maybe somebody can quote me this since scepti has taken it upon himself to block me.

"A common misconception is that the polar shortest day is totally dark everywhere inside the polar circle. In places very close to the poles it is completely dark, but regions located at the inner border of the polar circles experience polar twilight instead of polar night. In fact, polar regions typically get more twilight throughout the year than equatorial regions.

For regions inside the polar circles, the maximum lengths of the time that the sun is completely below the horizon varies from about 20 hours at the Arctic Circle and Antarctic Circle to 179 days at the Poles. However, not all this time is classified as polar night, since sunlight may be visible because of refraction. Also, the time when the sun is above the horizon at the poles is 186 days. The numerical asymmetry occurs because the time when the sun is partially above the horizon is counted towards the "daytime". Also, the above numbers are average numbers: owing to the ellipticity of the Earth's orbit, where the South pole receives a week more of sun-below-horizon than the North pole."

So the number of consecutive polar nights and polar days is almost symmetric but because of the elliptical orbit this slightly varies by as much as 10 ten days.


Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #35 on: October 23, 2013, 06:13:12 AM »
Before I answer, I have a few questions.

If your south pole has 24 hours of sun, then the north pole has 24 hours of darkness, right?

How many days a year does your south pole have 24 hours sunlight?

How many days a year does the north pole have 24 hours of sun light?

How many days a year does your south pole have 24 hours of darkness?

How many days a year does the north pole have 24 hours of darkness?

It doesn't matter. How can the sun light anything above (or below depending how you look at it) Antartic Circle at once?
For me to get a good take on things, I need you to answer my questions. You are well versed on round earth, aren't you, so educate me, so I can work it all out.
I ask you first remember? So please answer my question first. How can everything inside the Antarctic Circle (see RE map below) be lit up at the same time on a flat earth (regardless how long it is).

   
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 06:17:14 AM by Cartesian »
I think, therefore I am

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #36 on: October 23, 2013, 06:20:25 AM »
Maybe somebody can quote me this since scepti has taken it upon himself to block me.

"A common misconception is that the polar shortest day is totally dark everywhere inside the polar circle. In places very close to the poles it is completely dark, but regions located at the inner border of the polar circles experience polar twilight instead of polar night. In fact, polar regions typically get more twilight throughout the year than equatorial regions.

For regions inside the polar circles, the maximum lengths of the time that the sun is completely below the horizon varies from about 20 hours at the Arctic Circle and Antarctic Circle to 179 days at the Poles. However, not all this time is classified as polar night, since sunlight may be visible because of refraction. Also, the time when the sun is above the horizon at the poles is 186 days. The numerical asymmetry occurs because the time when the sun is partially above the horizon is counted towards the "daytime". Also, the above numbers are average numbers: owing to the ellipticity of the Earth's orbit, where the South pole receives a week more of sun-below-horizon than the North pole."

So the number of consecutive polar nights and polar days is almost symmetric but because of the elliptical orbit this slightly varies by as much as 10 ten days.

I could see this happening in the Arctic Circle, buy I have yet to see credible evidence of this happening in the Antarctic Circle.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23351
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #37 on: October 23, 2013, 06:23:40 AM »
Cartesian:

I don't know everything about how your round earth works, so I'd like you to explain a few things to me in simplistic terms, so I can get an idea of how to give you an answer.

4 questions I need answering of which are in an above post. If you don't want to answer then, then fair enough but I can't answer your question until I familiarize myself with what happens with your north and south poles.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #38 on: October 23, 2013, 06:24:39 AM »
Maybe somebody can quote me this since scepti has taken it upon himself to block me.

"A common misconception is that the polar shortest day is totally dark everywhere inside the polar circle. In places very close to the poles it is completely dark, but regions located at the inner border of the polar circles experience polar twilight instead of polar night. In fact, polar regions typically get more twilight throughout the year than equatorial regions.

For regions inside the polar circles, the maximum lengths of the time that the sun is completely below the horizon varies from about 20 hours at the Arctic Circle and Antarctic Circle to 179 days at the Poles. However, not all this time is classified as polar night, since sunlight may be visible because of refraction. Also, the time when the sun is above the horizon at the poles is 186 days. The numerical asymmetry occurs because the time when the sun is partially above the horizon is counted towards the "daytime". Also, the above numbers are average numbers: owing to the ellipticity of the Earth's orbit, where the South pole receives a week more of sun-below-horizon than the North pole."

So the number of consecutive polar nights and polar days is almost symmetric but because of the elliptical orbit this slightly varies by as much as 10 ten days.

I could see this happening in the Arctic Circle, buy I have yet to see credible evidence of this happening in the Antarctic Circle.

Contrary to the popular beliefs on this website you are allowed to go to the south pole. There are even relatively inexpensive cruises you can take to show yourself. Or you can ask anybody who may have been on these cruises. You know that you will disregard testimonies anyway so I think you'd be best off proving this for yourself rather than just outright denying it with typical FE pseudo-skepticism.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #39 on: October 23, 2013, 06:26:04 AM »
Cartesian:

I don't know everything about how your round earth works, so I'd like you to explain a few things to me in simplistic terms, so I can get an idea of how to give you an answer.

4 questions I need answering of which are in an above post. If you don't want to answer then, then fair enough but I can't answer your question until I familiarize myself with what happens with your north and south poles.

Every single bit of your theories (and all FE theories) piggy back on the work of real science. It's pathetic.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #40 on: October 23, 2013, 06:34:10 AM »
Maybe somebody can quote me this since scepti has taken it upon himself to block me.

"A common misconception is that the polar shortest day is totally dark everywhere inside the polar circle. In places very close to the poles it is completely dark, but regions located at the inner border of the polar circles experience polar twilight instead of polar night. In fact, polar regions typically get more twilight throughout the year than equatorial regions.

For regions inside the polar circles, the maximum lengths of the time that the sun is completely below the horizon varies from about 20 hours at the Arctic Circle and Antarctic Circle to 179 days at the Poles. However, not all this time is classified as polar night, since sunlight may be visible because of refraction. Also, the time when the sun is above the horizon at the poles is 186 days. The numerical asymmetry occurs because the time when the sun is partially above the horizon is counted towards the "daytime". Also, the above numbers are average numbers: owing to the ellipticity of the Earth's orbit, where the South pole receives a week more of sun-below-horizon than the North pole."

So the number of consecutive polar nights and polar days is almost symmetric but because of the elliptical orbit this slightly varies by as much as 10 ten days.

I could see this happening in the Arctic Circle, buy I have yet to see credible evidence of this happening in the Antarctic Circle.

Contrary to the popular beliefs on this website you are allowed to go to the south pole. There are even relatively inexpensive cruises you can take to show yourself. Or you can ask anybody who may have been on these cruises. You know that you will disregard testimonies anyway so I think you'd be best off proving this for yourself rather than just outright denying it with typical FE pseudo-skepticism.

That is an amazing amount of insight.  Thank you for sharing nothing in your post.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #41 on: October 23, 2013, 06:46:03 AM »
Maybe somebody can quote me this since scepti has taken it upon himself to block me.

"A common misconception is that the polar shortest day is totally dark everywhere inside the polar circle. In places very close to the poles it is completely dark, but regions located at the inner border of the polar circles experience polar twilight instead of polar night. In fact, polar regions typically get more twilight throughout the year than equatorial regions.

For regions inside the polar circles, the maximum lengths of the time that the sun is completely below the horizon varies from about 20 hours at the Arctic Circle and Antarctic Circle to 179 days at the Poles. However, not all this time is classified as polar night, since sunlight may be visible because of refraction. Also, the time when the sun is above the horizon at the poles is 186 days. The numerical asymmetry occurs because the time when the sun is partially above the horizon is counted towards the "daytime". Also, the above numbers are average numbers: owing to the ellipticity of the Earth's orbit, where the South pole receives a week more of sun-below-horizon than the North pole."

So the number of consecutive polar nights and polar days is almost symmetric but because of the elliptical orbit this slightly varies by as much as 10 ten days.

I could see this happening in the Arctic Circle, buy I have yet to see credible evidence of this happening in the Antarctic Circle.

Contrary to the popular beliefs on this website you are allowed to go to the south pole. There are even relatively inexpensive cruises you can take to show yourself. Or you can ask anybody who may have been on these cruises. You know that you will disregard testimonies anyway so I think you'd be best off proving this for yourself rather than just outright denying it with typical FE pseudo-skepticism.

That is an amazing amount of insight.  Thank you for sharing nothing in your post.

Are you kidding me? You are claiming that there is no evidence when there absolutely is. There are people (specifically scientists) who live there. I am quite aware that you believe anything that proves your claims wrong about a "lack of evidence" is a lie so I'm avoiding the typical way these conversations and jumping straight to where it ends up. Go prove it for yourself.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23351
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #42 on: October 23, 2013, 06:51:53 AM »
scepti, which FE map is the most correct one?
The closest one is this one.




What is your opinion about objects south of the equator such as the size and shape of Australia and distances between South America and Australia on that map ?

Which do you think is the most accurate : The "North Polar (FE)Map" or the "Bipolar (FE) Map" ?
I missed this post for some reason. Sorry about that.

The flat earth I believe is the real earth, or the real earth that we are allowed to know about is the one that's stuck on a globe model.

EXCEPT!
it's a flat earth model, superimposed onto the globe, so if you peel off the map on the globe starting with what you think Antarctica is and open it all up and flatten it out. That's the closest to the real earth, or shall I say...that is the closest they want us to see of the real earth.

If there are any clever computer wizards out there, maybe they can attempt this. I don't know if it's possible or not, though.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #43 on: October 23, 2013, 06:54:07 AM »
Maybe somebody can quote me this since scepti has taken it upon himself to block me.

"A common misconception is that the polar shortest day is totally dark everywhere inside the polar circle. In places very close to the poles it is completely dark, but regions located at the inner border of the polar circles experience polar twilight instead of polar night. In fact, polar regions typically get more twilight throughout the year than equatorial regions.

For regions inside the polar circles, the maximum lengths of the time that the sun is completely below the horizon varies from about 20 hours at the Arctic Circle and Antarctic Circle to 179 days at the Poles. However, not all this time is classified as polar night, since sunlight may be visible because of refraction. Also, the time when the sun is above the horizon at the poles is 186 days. The numerical asymmetry occurs because the time when the sun is partially above the horizon is counted towards the "daytime". Also, the above numbers are average numbers: owing to the ellipticity of the Earth's orbit, where the South pole receives a week more of sun-below-horizon than the North pole."

So the number of consecutive polar nights and polar days is almost symmetric but because of the elliptical orbit this slightly varies by as much as 10 ten days.

I could see this happening in the Arctic Circle, buy I have yet to see credible evidence of this happening in the Antarctic Circle.

Contrary to the popular beliefs on this website you are allowed to go to the south pole. There are even relatively inexpensive cruises you can take to show yourself. Or you can ask anybody who may have been on these cruises. You know that you will disregard testimonies anyway so I think you'd be best off proving this for yourself rather than just outright denying it with typical FE pseudo-skepticism.

That is an amazing amount of insight.  Thank you for sharing nothing in your post.

Are you kidding me? You are claiming that there is no evidence when there absolutely is. There are people (specifically scientists) who live there. I am quite aware that you believe anything that proves your claims wrong about a "lack of evidence" is a lie so I'm avoiding the typical way these conversations and jumping straight to where it ends up. Go prove it for yourself.

I see that you are trying to troll again, but I will play along.  Go ahead and prove me wrong.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #44 on: October 23, 2013, 06:58:11 AM »
Maybe somebody can quote me this since scepti has taken it upon himself to block me.

"A common misconception is that the polar shortest day is totally dark everywhere inside the polar circle. In places very close to the poles it is completely dark, but regions located at the inner border of the polar circles experience polar twilight instead of polar night. In fact, polar regions typically get more twilight throughout the year than equatorial regions.

For regions inside the polar circles, the maximum lengths of the time that the sun is completely below the horizon varies from about 20 hours at the Arctic Circle and Antarctic Circle to 179 days at the Poles. However, not all this time is classified as polar night, since sunlight may be visible because of refraction. Also, the time when the sun is above the horizon at the poles is 186 days. The numerical asymmetry occurs because the time when the sun is partially above the horizon is counted towards the "daytime". Also, the above numbers are average numbers: owing to the ellipticity of the Earth's orbit, where the South pole receives a week more of sun-below-horizon than the North pole."

So the number of consecutive polar nights and polar days is almost symmetric but because of the elliptical orbit this slightly varies by as much as 10 ten days.

I could see this happening in the Arctic Circle, buy I have yet to see credible evidence of this happening in the Antarctic Circle.

Contrary to the popular beliefs on this website you are allowed to go to the south pole. There are even relatively inexpensive cruises you can take to show yourself. Or you can ask anybody who may have been on these cruises. You know that you will disregard testimonies anyway so I think you'd be best off proving this for yourself rather than just outright denying it with typical FE pseudo-skepticism.

That is an amazing amount of insight.  Thank you for sharing nothing in your post.

Are you kidding me? You are claiming that there is no evidence when there absolutely is. There are people (specifically scientists) who live there. I am quite aware that you believe anything that proves your claims wrong about a "lack of evidence" is a lie so I'm avoiding the typical way these conversations and jumping straight to where it ends up. Go prove it for yourself.

I see that you are trying to troll again, but I will play along.  Go ahead and prove me wrong.

This is far from trolling. I'm just avoiding hours of me showing you testimonies and pictures objected by denial after denial by getting to what will inevitably be the conclusion of conversing with you.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #45 on: October 23, 2013, 07:07:13 AM »
Hey rottingroom, I have a suggestion.  Why don't you give your best FE argument, and I will try to counter it with RE science.  If you agree, we should make a new thread, so we don't mes this one up.

Seriously, are you up for it?


?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #47 on: October 23, 2013, 07:11:13 AM »
Hey rottingroom, I have a suggestion.  Why don't you give your best FE argument, and I will try to counter it with RE science.  If you agree, we should make a new thread, so we don't mes this one up.

Seriously, are you up for it?

I would rather eat a baby.

Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #48 on: October 23, 2013, 07:13:09 AM »
Hey rottingroom, I have a suggestion.  Why don't you give your best FE argument, and I will try to counter it with RE science.  If you agree, we should make a new thread, so we don't mes this one up.

Seriously, are you up for it?

I would rather eat a baby.
Disgusting comment.  Real classy.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #49 on: October 23, 2013, 07:17:04 AM »
Hey rottingroom, I have a suggestion.  Why don't you give your best FE argument, and I will try to counter it with RE science.  If you agree, we should make a new thread, so we don't mes this one up.

Seriously, are you up for it?

I would rather eat a baby.

Why not?  We could do it in CN so that nobody thinks you are really on the FE side.

It is just so easy to argue for the RET.  I could do it without hardly thinking.  I would not jump around acting like I accomplished something, I just want to know how you would argue for the other side. 

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #50 on: October 23, 2013, 07:18:59 AM »
Hey rottingroom, I have a suggestion.  Why don't you give your best FE argument, and I will try to counter it with RE science.  If you agree, we should make a new thread, so we don't mes this one up.

Seriously, are you up for it?

I would rather eat a baby.

Why not?  We could do it in CN so that nobody thinks you are really on the FE side.

It is just so easy to argue for the RET.  I could do it without hardly thinking.  I would not jump around acting like I accomplished something, I just want to know how you would argue for the other side.

He already did that, and it degenerated in to both sides being losers.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39430
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #51 on: October 23, 2013, 07:22:23 AM »
I could see this happening in the Arctic Circle, buy I have yet to see credible evidence of this happening in the Antarctic Circle.
Are you saying that all of the people who stay the winter at Antarctic research stations are not credible?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #52 on: October 23, 2013, 07:22:59 AM »
No, I am not talking about making fun of each other.  I am talking about serious debate.

When I debated in high school, I did not get a choice of the side I was given.  I was just wondering if rottingroom would want a debate where he would have to actually think about the harder side instead of choosing the easy side. 

If not, then oh well. 
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 07:26:56 AM by jroa »

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23351
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #53 on: October 23, 2013, 07:24:01 AM »
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Earth Flattened
Excellent!
Nice one Earthisaspaceship. I think this is the closest to reality that we will get to know about.

?

11cookeaw1

Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #54 on: October 23, 2013, 07:27:47 AM »
Sceptimatic, what is your view on Islam?

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #55 on: October 23, 2013, 07:29:20 AM »
No, I am not talking about making fun of each other.  I am talking about serious debate.

When I debated in high school, I did not get a choice of the side I picked.  I was just wondering if rottingroom would want a debate where he would have to actually think about the harder side instead of choosing the easy side. 

If not, then oh well.

How is it harder to argue the FE side? The method is to simply ignore arguments and make stuff up. It doesn't even have to make sense. RE'rs get the convenience of having lots of sources from which to obtain arguments from but those arguments have to be presented in a way that is coherent. There is an illusion on these forums that the answer is still up in the air simply because FE'rs refuse concede that they have lost.

Anyways, I will play. I have physical therapy in a bit so I can only do it for a bit but after therapy I can continue where we left off. Go ahead and start it wherever you'd like.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23351
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #56 on: October 23, 2013, 07:32:05 AM »
Sceptimatic, what is your view on Islam?
No view whatsoever. I do not follow religion in any form. That's not to say that I reject it, it's to say that I simply have my own opinion on what life is about and it doesn't constitute gods of any earthly religions.

I'm not going to tell anyone that their religion is wrong or their god does not exist, though. I simply follow my own god, which is my own mind...that is my god. It controls who I am and what I think and do.

My brain is my computer, there are many like it, but this one is mine.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #57 on: October 23, 2013, 07:35:28 AM »
Scepti is definitely a solipsist. I used to think I was too. When I got my minor in philosophy a class in western philosophy specifically about pragmatism released me from what I saw as a necessary skepticism for life. I am still a skeptic but there must be a functioning pragmatic concession in order to function.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #58 on: October 23, 2013, 07:36:54 AM »
No, I am not talking about making fun of each other.  I am talking about serious debate.

When I debated in high school, I did not get a choice of the side I picked.  I was just wondering if rottingroom would want a debate where he would have to actually think about the harder side instead of choosing the easy side. 

If not, then oh well.

How is it harder to argue the FE side? The method is to simply ignore arguments and make stuff up. It doesn't even have to make sense. RE'rs get the convenience of having lots of sources from which to obtain arguments from but those arguments have to be presented in a way that is coherent. There is an illusion on these forums that the answer is still up in the air simply because FE'rs refuse concede that they have lost.

Anyways, I will play. I have physical therapy in a bit so I can only do it for a bit but after therapy I can continue where we left off. Go ahead and start it wherever you'd like.

Ok, I will probably pass out in a little while, but I never sleep more than 4 hours.  You our I can make a new post in the CN section and I will delete anyone else who posts there. 

I will be hung over, so you will have the advantage.  But that is OK, because I will be debating the easy side. 

Also, I will not be doing a sceptimatic and just ignore any points you make.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #59 on: October 23, 2013, 07:38:54 AM »
No, I am not talking about making fun of each other.  I am talking about serious debate.

When I debated in high school, I did not get a choice of the side I picked.  I was just wondering if rottingroom would want a debate where he would have to actually think about the harder side instead of choosing the easy side. 

If not, then oh well.

How is it harder to argue the FE side? The method is to simply ignore arguments and make stuff up. It doesn't even have to make sense. RE'rs get the convenience of having lots of sources from which to obtain arguments from but those arguments have to be presented in a way that is coherent. There is an illusion on these forums that the answer is still up in the air simply because FE'rs refuse concede that they have lost.

Anyways, I will play. I have physical therapy in a bit so I can only do it for a bit but after therapy I can continue where we left off. Go ahead and start it wherever you'd like.

Ok, I will probably pass out in a little while, but I never sleep more than 4 hours.  You our I can make a new post in the CN section and I will delete anyone else who posts there. 

I will be hung over, so you will have the advantage.  But that is OK, because I will be debating the easy side. 

Also, I will not be doing a sceptimatic and just ignore any points you make.

It probably make more sense for me to start it. I will make a simple claim in the OP that the Earth is flat, then we will go from there.