An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?

Quote from: Spank86 on January 29, 2014, 02:45:06 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2014, 08:56:14 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 29, 2014, 08:22:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2014, 05:28:37 AM

They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think for themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.

Okay sceptimatic.  Can you let us know, specifically, what empirical evidence you possess that disproves that the planet is spherical?

And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, again specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?

It isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
All water flows to the oceans.

there's oceans in every direction. that doesn't prove anything.

There's ocean around the dinner plate,yes

Rivers flow into the Mediterranean from all sides, there is however no appreciable flow through he straits of Gibraltar aside from tidal movement. There's also flow of rivers north from russia and canada as well as east and west in india west in Japan and east in china.

TBH given all the oceans and rivers its better explained by local elevation instead of some overall curve. There's no way to draw a map so every river flows downhill on a uniform curve.

There's ocean around the dinner plate,yes

What dinner plate?  You do give the impression of making stuff up as you go along.

I can't imagine this: can you draw a diagram?

So a friend of mine said this to me, and I had no idea how to reply.
"If I got in an aeroplane in Amsterdam, and flew to the left (west) all the time, how do you explain that after hours of flying you end up in Amsterdam again? How can you explain that with a flat earth?"

There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?

"West" is not a straight line direction from Amsterdam on either the earth or even a globe.

"West" is not a straight line direction from Amsterdam on either the earth or even a globe.

You do the same harping on a word like jroa. Flying West in everyday common speech like this simply means flying on the same latitude with decreasing longitude. It will bring you back to Amsterdam all right.

I note that sceptimatic never answered my questions about his own sources of information that he uses to support his belief in a flat earth.

A few days ago he said that "They [REs] have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet, of course".

And I said:

And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, specifically, what sources of data YOU utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?

It's becoming apparent that when a FE can't answer a direct question, they invariably just ignore it and hope, given time, people will forget about it and it'll just go away.

So... what about it sceptimatic?
 

Quote from: Ski on January 31, 2014, 03:30:40 PM

"West" is not a straight line direction from Amsterdam on either the earth or even a globe.

You do the same harping on a word like jroa. Flying West in everyday common speech like this simply means flying on the same latitude with decreasing longitude. It will bring you back to Amsterdam all right.

As it would on a planar earth as well.

If you fly South it has to be a straight line. And then what happens. Do you hit the south pole or flip to another world underneath the earth?

Quote from: reofcourse on February 01, 2014, 02:02:38 AM

Quote from: Ski on January 31, 2014, 03:30:40 PM

"West" is not a straight line direction from Amsterdam on either the earth or even a globe.

You do the same harping on a word like jroa. Flying West in everyday common speech like this simply means flying on the same latitude with decreasing longitude. It will bring you back to Amsterdam all right.

As it would on a planar earth as well.

The plane would have to constantly be turning on a FE to remain at the same latitude.  It wouldn't on a RE. (I know that no one actually flies this way, so don't try to correct me)

The plane would have to constantly be turning on a FE to remain at the same latitude.  It wouldn't on a RE. (I know that no one actually flies this way, so don't try to correct me)

Be sure to add "at the equator only". 

Quote from: Ski on February 01, 2014, 07:10:39 PM

Quote from: reofcourse on February 01, 2014, 02:02:38 AM

Quote from: Ski on January 31, 2014, 03:30:40 PM

"West" is not a straight line direction from Amsterdam on either the earth or even a globe.

You do the same harping on a word like jroa. Flying West in everyday common speech like this simply means flying on the same latitude with decreasing longitude. It will bring you back to Amsterdam all right.

As it would on a planar earth as well.

The plane would have to constantly be turning on a FE to remain at the same latitude.  It wouldn't on a RE. (I know that no one actually flies this way, so don't try to correct me)

Errm.. It would... 

Quote from: Dantheman14 on February 19, 2014, 01:48:23 PM

Quote from: Ski on February 01, 2014, 07:10:39 PM

Quote from: reofcourse on February 01, 2014, 02:02:38 AM

Quote from: Ski on January 31, 2014, 03:30:40 PM

"West" is not a straight line direction from Amsterdam on either the earth or even a globe.

You do the same harping on a word like jroa. Flying West in everyday common speech like this simply means flying on the same latitude with decreasing longitude. It will bring you back to Amsterdam all right.

As it would on a planar earth as well.

The plane would have to constantly be turning on a FE to remain at the same latitude.  It wouldn't on a RE. (I know that no one actually flies this way, so don't try to correct me)

Errm.. It would... 

Yes, it would. They'd be minor corrections, but as all commercial aircraft fly on the computers, particularly in the cruise, the logs would record those inputs.

East and west are not straight lines (or "are turning") on the flat earth or a globe.

The difference of course being on a globe, one could head straight east/west on the equator, and then would have to turn the other way in the southern hemisphere.

The difference of course being on a globe, one could head straight east/west on the equator, and then would have to turn the other way in the southern hemisphere.

Yes.  Could you please show us where this happens?  Maybe a single account of someone experiencing this?

Quote from: 29silhouette on March 03, 2014, 09:09:17 AM

The difference of course being on a globe, one could head straight east/west on the equator, and then would have to turn the other way in the southern hemisphere.

Yes.  Could you please show us where this happens?

  It happens on a globe.  Trace a latitude line heading east in the north, you'll have to turn left.  Trace a latitude line east in the south, you turn right.  Trace the equator, you go straight.

Maybe a single account of someone experiencing this?

Pretty much everyone who has looked at latitude lines on a desktop globe or google earth and happened to notice it.  See for yourself if you have a desktop globe or GE.

Quote from: jroa on March 03, 2014, 04:55:09 PM

Quote from: 29silhouette on March 03, 2014, 09:09:17 AM

The difference of course being on a globe, one could head straight east/west on the equator, and then would have to turn the other way in the southern hemisphere.

Yes.  Could you please show us where this happens?

  It happens on a globe.  Trace a latitude line heading east in the north, you'll have to turn left.  Trace a latitude line east in the south, you turn right.  Trace the equator, you go straight.

Yes, certainly that happens on a globe. I believe the question was, is this occurring or has this occurred on the earth which might lead us to believe it was a globe.

If you fly South it has to be a straight line. And then what happens. Do you hit the south pole or flip to another world underneath the earth?

What would happen would be your plane crashing after being shot by the heavies NASA has put on the ice wall.

Obviously  .

The plane would have to constantly be turning on a FE to remain at the same latitude.  It wouldn't on a RE.

Actually, any pilot worth his salt wouldn't be flying on a line of latitude.  He would be flying a great circle.

Yes, certainly that happens on a globe. I believe the question was, is this occurring or has this occurred on the earth which might lead us to believe it was a globe.

Try this example as clarification:

You travel to the North pole.  You stand 100m distant from it, and start walking in a circle of 200m diameter with the pole at its geometric centre, and in an easterly direction.  Do you need to turn slightly to your left to complete the circular path you're walking? 

Yes, now have you any evidence that the second part of your theory is actually happening?

I note that sceptimatic never answered my questions about his own sources of information that he uses to support his belief in a flat earth.

A few days ago he said that "They [REs] have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet, of course".

And I said:

Quote

And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, specifically, what sources of data YOU utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?

It's becoming apparent that when a FE can't answer a direct question, they invariably just ignore it and hope, given time, people will forget about it and it'll just go away.

So... what about it sceptimatic?

They won't provide you with reliable sources ever. The closest they have is a man how has been dis-proven many times and described as a charlatan (even by the church), Samuel Rowbotham, and a statement made by Galileo who at the time was under duress caused by intimidation from the catholic church, an organization that hasn't done much to make themselves seem trust worthy in the last few years...

The other reason this won't be answered is that the society is terrified of committing to an actual layout of the continents of the earth and has freely admitted they don't know.

[Edit] Source Added - http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/litehous.htm

Quote from: ausGeoff on February 01, 2014, 10:30:33 AM

I note that sceptimatic never answered my questions about his own sources of information that he uses to support his belief in a flat earth.

A few days ago he said that "They [REs] have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet, of course".

And I said:

Quote

And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, specifically, what sources of data YOU utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?

It's becoming apparent that when a FE can't answer a direct question, they invariably just ignore it and hope, given time, people will forget about it and it'll just go away.

So... what about it sceptimatic?

They won't provide you with reliable sources ever. The closest they have is a man how has been dis-proven many times and described as a charlatan (even by the church), Samuel Rowbotham, and a statement made by Galileo who at the time was under duress caused by intimidation from the catholic church, an organization that hasn't done much to make themselves seem trust worthy in the last few years...

The other reason this won't be answered is that the society is terrified of committing to an actual layout of the continents of the earth and has freely admitted they don't know.

[Edit] Source Added - http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/litehous.htm

I'd be happy with some dimensions. If it's square/rectangular, what are the lengths? if it's circular/round, what's the radius or diameter.

I'd be happy with some dimensions. If it's square/rectangular, what are the lengths? if it's circular/round, what's the radius or diameter.

Trust me; not one of the flat earthers here will be able to give you any sort of definitive dimensions backed up with empirical evidence.  The proposed dimensions of their flat earth are entirely dependent on which flat earther is telling the story at the time, and has no basis whatsoever in reality. 

They use a sort of nebulous agglomeration of hearsay, conjecture, fancies, guesstimates, factoids, and imagination in order to come up with any sorts of figures at all.  It's actually quite amusing to watch different flat earthers propound their own personal theories about the purported shape  and size of the planet, whilst none at all can agree on a common model.

So I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for any sort of "accurate" answers to your question.
 

Why do RE scientists not all agree with each other?  You would think that they would all have the same opinions on everything if they did real science.  They can't all come to the same conclusion.  How can you take them seriously? 

Why do RE scientists not all agree with each other?  You would think that they would all have the same opinions on everything if they did real science.  They can't all come to the same conclusion.  How can you take them seriously?

They do.

No, they don't.  Some say that Gravity is a particle.  Some say it is an energy.  Some say it is bendy space_time.  There are dozens of other theories.

Most scientists say that HIV causes AIDS.  However, there are a bunch who claim it does not.

Some say that vaccines are good for kids.  Others say that the side affects are worse than the diseases they are supposed to protect against. 

You can't hold the flat Earthers to any less standards than you do for your scientists. 

No, they don't.  Some say that Gravity is a particle.  Some say it is an energy.  Some say it is bendy space_time.  There are dozens of other theories.

Most scientists say that HIV causes AIDS.  However, there are a bunch who claim it does not.

Some say that vaccines are good for kids.  Others say that the side affects are worse than the diseases they are supposed to protect against. 

You can't hold the flat Earthers to any less standards than you do for your scientists.

Notice again if you will round earthers, how deftly jroa attempts to derail a thread by introducing some totally unconnected factoids (about human health).

Well done mate!  And you call yourself a moderator, when in fact you're one of the worst culprits on these forums for this sort of rule breaking.  Tsk, tsk.

BTW; you also claim that "There are dozens of other theories" about gravity.  Could you please list just a few of them?

—I thought not.  Because there aren't any.  Sorry.
 
 

Quote from: jroa on April 05, 2014, 02:11:35 PM

No, they don't.  Some say that Gravity is a particle.  Some say it is an energy.  Some say it is bendy space_time.  There are dozens of other theories.

Most scientists say that HIV causes AIDS.  However, there are a bunch who claim it does not.

Some say that vaccines are good for kids.  Others say that the side affects are worse than the diseases they are supposed to protect against. 

You can't hold the flat Earthers to any less standards than you do for your scientists.

Notice again if you will round earthers, how deftly jroa attempts to derail a thread by introducing some totally unconnected factoids (about human health).

Well done mate!  And you call yourself a moderator, when in fact you're one of the worst culprits on these forums for this sort of rule breaking.  Tsk, tsk.

BTW; you also claim that "There are dozens of other theories" about gravity.  Could you please list just a few of them?

—I thought not.  Because there aren't any.  Sorry.
 
 

lol, I answered a question and you try to say I am derailing.  Then, you ask something that is off topic.  Do you not see the hypocrisy? 

Anyway, sense you asked, here is a link to a list of dozens of theories about gravity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Theories_of_gravitation

Quote from: ausGeoff on April 05, 2014, 02:45:39 PM

Quote from: jroa on April 05, 2014, 02:11:35 PM

No, they don't.  Some say that Gravity is a particle.  Some say it is an energy.  Some say it is bendy space_time.  There are dozens of other theories.

Most scientists say that HIV causes AIDS.  However, there are a bunch who claim it does not.

Some say that vaccines are good for kids.  Others say that the side affects are worse than the diseases they are supposed to protect against. 

You can't hold the flat Earthers to any less standards than you do for your scientists.

Notice again if you will round earthers, how deftly jroa attempts to derail a thread by introducing some totally unconnected factoids (about human health).

Well done mate!  And you call yourself a moderator, when in fact you're one of the worst culprits on these forums for this sort of rule breaking.  Tsk, tsk.

BTW; you also claim that "There are dozens of other theories" about gravity.  Could you please list just a few of them?

—I thought not.  Because there aren't any.  Sorry.
 
 

lol, I answered a question and you try to say I am derailing.  Then, you ask something that is off topic.  Do you not see the hypocrisy? 

Anyway, sense you asked, here is a link to a list of dozens of theories about gravity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Theories_of_gravitation

I did not see anything there about UA.

Why do RE scientists not all agree with each other?  You would think that they would all have the same opinions on everything if they did real science.  They can't all come to the same conclusion.  How can you take them seriously?

All RE scientists agree the earth is.... round.  Which is what we are discussing here.